Britt v. Houston County Jail (INMATE 2)

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALKEEM J. BRITT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 1:21-CV-245-WHA-CSC ) [WO] HOUSTON COUNTY JAIL, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se Plaintiff Alkeem Britt filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on March 24, 2021. On March 25, 2021, the Court entered an Order of Procedure. Doc. 4. The Order directed Defendants to file an Answer and Written Report and also directed Plaintiff to “immediately inform the court and Defendants or Defendants’ counsel of record of any change in his address.” Doc. 4 at 3, ¶8. The Order also advised Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to provide a correct address to this court within ten (10) days following any change of address will result in the dismissal of this action.” Doc. 4 at 3, ¶8. On May 19, 2021, Plaintiff’s copy of an Order filed May 6, 2021, was returned to the Court marked as undeliverable because Plaintiff is no longer detained at the last service address he provided.1 Accordingly, the Court entered an Order on May 20, 2021, requiring that by June 1, 2021, Plaintiff file with the Court a current address or show cause why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to adequately prosecute this action. Doc. 20.

1 The last service address of record for Plaintiff is the Houston County Jail in Dothan, Alabama. This Order specifically advised Plaintiff this case could not proceed if his whereabouts remained unknown and cautioned him his failure to comply with its directives would result in the dismissal of this case. Id. Plaintiff’s copy of the May 20, 2021, Order was returned

to the Court June 4, 2021, marked as undeliverable. The Court therefore concludes this case should be dismissed. A federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute or obey a court order. See, e.g., Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629– 30 (1962); FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). The Eleventh Circuit has made clear that “dismissal is

warranted only upon a ‘clear record of delay or willful contempt and a finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice.’” Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op of Fla., 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985)). Here, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has willfully failed to file a response in compliance with the Court’s May 20, 2021, Order. And considering

Plaintiff’s disregard for orders of this Court, the undersigned further finds sanctions lesser than dismissal would not suffice in this case. Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. A party may file objections to the Recommendation by August 26, 2021. Any

objections filed by a party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which objection is made. 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); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989). Done, this 12th day of August 2021.

/s/ Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE