Opinion
CASE NO. 2:20-CV-868-WHA-JTA [WO]
04-23-2021
JAMES TROUPE, #258 351, Plaintiff, v. JOHNNIE MAE MATTHEW, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On November 13, 2020, the Court directed Plaintiff to forward to the Clerk of Court an initial partial filing fee in the amount of $27.17. Doc. 5 at 2. Plaintiff was cautioned his failure to comply with the Order would result in a Recommendation his Complaint be dismissed. Doc. 5 at 3.
The time to comply with the November 13, 2020, Order, as extended by Orders entered December 1, 2020 and February 12, 2021, expired on March 1, 2021, and Plaintiff has not submitted the initial partial filing fee. The Court, therefore, concludes this case is due to be dismissed. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (explaining 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 that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action and comply with the orders of this Court.
Plaintiff may file an objection to the Recommendation on or before May 10, 2021. Any objection 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 a written objection 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); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).
DONE this 23rd day of April, 2021.
/s/_________
JERUSHA T. ADAMS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE