Collins v. Ivey (INMATE 3)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION MARICO LATEZ COLLINS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. v. ) 2:22cv467-WHA-CSC ) (WO) KAY IVEY, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Marico Latez Collins, an inmate incarcerated at the St. Clair Correctional Facility, filed this pro se civil action on August 5, 2022. Doc. 1. Although Collins applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), he submitted no information regarding his inmate account. Thus, on August 8, 2022, the Court issued an order directing Collins to submit an inmate account statement by August 22, 2022, reflecting the average monthly balance in his prison account and the average monthly deposits to his account for the six- month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint. Doc. 3. The Court specifically cautioned Collins that failure to comply with its order would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. Doc. 3 at 2. To date, Collins has neither complied with nor otherwise responded to the Court’s August 8 order. Because Collins has failed to submit an inmate account statement in compliance with the Court’s order, the undersigned concludes that this case should be dismissed without prejudice. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (noting that “dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion”) (citations omitted). The authority of courts to impose sanctions for failure to prosecute or obey an order is longstanding and acknowledged by Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962). This authority “is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” Id. It further empowers the courts “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Id. at 630–31. Here, the undersigned finds that sanctions lesser than dismissal would not suffice. See Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co- Op of Fla., 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. It is further ORDERED that by September 27 2022, the parties may file objections to this Recommendation. The parties must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered by the Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, is not appealable. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) will bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waive the right of the party to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except on grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); 11th Cir. R. 3-1. See Stein v. Reynolds Sec., Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). DONE this 13th day of September, 2022. /s/ Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE