Fox v. Hanson

• Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
• Decided: July 3, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-00134
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

PROFESSIONAL ARENA ) ENTERPRISE, LLC, and ) STEPHEN FOX, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV425-134 ) MR. HANSON, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Pro se plaintiff Stephen Fox filed an ambiguous Complaint concerning a dispute over the contents of a storage unit. See generally doc. 1; see also doc. 6. The Court authorized him to proceed in forma pauperis, screened his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and afforded him an opportunity to amend his defective claims. See generally doc. 6. The deadline for him to submit an amended complaint was June 30, 2025. See id. at 7. He has not complied with the Order. See generally docket. The Court’s Order expressly warned him that failure to timely comply could result in a recommendation that his case be dismissed. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)).

This Court has the authority to prune cases from its docket where parties have failed to comply with its Orders. See S.D. Ga. L.R. 41.1(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (courts have

the inherent authority to dismiss claims for lack of prosecution); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989) (“The

district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.”); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983); Floyd v. United States, CV491-277 (S.D. Ga. June 10, 1992). Fox’s failure to comply with the

Court’s Order, along with the substantive defects in the original Complaint, see doc. 6 at 3-6, warrants dismissal. Accordingly, Fox’s Complaint should be DISMISSED.1 See, e.g.,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). This Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of

service, any party may file written objections to this R&R with the Court

1 To the extent that Fox wishes to submit an amended complaint out of time, the fourteen-day objections period discussed below affords him one final opportunity. If he seeks to comply out of time, he must also respond and SHOW CAUSE why he failed to comply timely. and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations.” After the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this R&R together with any objections to the assigned district judge. The district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonette v. V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 F. App’x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Mitchell v. United States, 612 F. App’x 542, 545 (11th Cir. 2015). SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED, this 3rd day of July, 2025. hatgio~d. (lad CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA