Opinion
CASE NO. 6:07-cv-1112-Orl-31KRS.
June 18, 2009
ORDER
This case is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 71, filed June 5, 2009). Defendants seek the dismissal of the instant action based on Plaintiff's failure to notify the Court or counsel of his current address.
In support of their motion, Defendants note that on March 30, 2009, the Court denied a motion to dismiss which was premised on Plaintiff's failure to comply with various Court Orders. In that Order, the Court noted that it had previously imposed monetary sanctions against Plaintiff for violating a Court Order. (Doc. No. 67 at 1.) The Court further advised Plaintiff that any future failures to comply with Court Orders would result in the immediate dismissal of this action with prejudice. Id.
On June 8, 2009, the Court directed Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. See Doc. No. 72. On June 18, 2009, the Order was returned as undeliverable. The Court had previously directed Plaintiff to notify the Court immediately of any change of address and warned him that failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this case without further notice. See Doc. No. 5 at 3. Thus, Plaintiff has again failed to comply with a Court Order.
In light of Plaintiff's failures to comply with Court Orders and the Court's admonishment that future failures to comply with such orders would result in dismissal of this action with prejudice, the Court finds that dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) is warranted. See, e.g., Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir. 1985) (holding that dismissal based on refusal to comply with court's directions was not abuse of discretion); Watkis v. Payless ShoeSource, Inc., 174 F.R.D. 113, 117 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (noting that "dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion"). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 71, filed June 5, 2009) is GRANTED.
2. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Orlando, Florida.