Opinion
CASE NO. 2:20-CV-919-ECM-SRW [WO]
03-03-2021
NATHAN THEORTHELI THIGPEN, #191 396, Plaintiff, v. KAY IVEY, GOVERNOR, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On November 12, 2020, the Court directed Plaintiff to forward to the Clerk of Court an initial partial filing fee in the amount of $4.50. Doc. 3. Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the November 12 Order would result in a Recommendation that his Complaint be dismissed. Id.
The time to comply with the November 12, 2020, order, as extended by order entered on December 30, 2020 (Doc. 5), has expired, and Plaintiff has not provided the Court with the initial partial filing fee. The Court, therefore, concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding that as a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232 F. App'x. 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate's § 1983 action for failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with court's prior order directing amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply).
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action and comply with the orders of this Court.
Plaintiff may file objections to the Recommendation on or before March 18, 2021. Any objections filed must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. This Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall "waive the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions" except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11TH Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that "[w]hen the magistrate provides such notice and a party still fails to object to the findings of fact and those findings are adopted by the district court the party may not challenge them on appeal in the absence of plain error or manifest injustice."); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).
DONE, on this the 3rd day of March, 2021.
/s/ Susan Russ Walker
Susan Russ Walker
United States Magistrate Judge