Landric Russell v. Agency for Persons with Disabilities

• Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
• Decided: April 24, 2026
• Docket: 4:26-cv-00091
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Tallahassee DIVISION LANDRIC RUSSELL,

Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 4:26cv91-RH-MAF AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, Defendant. _________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION After review of the pro se Plaintiff’s amended employment discrimination complaint, ECF No. 5, filed pursuant to Title VII and the

Americans with Disabilities Act, Plaintiff was directed to file a second amended complaint. ECF No. 6. The Court provided guidance to Plaintiff as to the deficiencies which must be corrected, and gave Plaintiff until April

19, 2026, to file a second amended complaint. Id. As of this date, Plaintiff has not complied and it appears Plaintiff has abandoned this litigation. Because Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply would result in a recommendation to dismiss this case, dismissal is appropriate. Page 2 of 3 “A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own docket, may dismiss a case sua sponte” when a Plaintiff “fails to prosecute

or” otherwise comply with a court order. See Ciosek v. Ashley, No. 3:13cv147-RV-CJK, 2015 WL 2137521, at *2 (N.D. Fla. May 7, 2015); see also Smith v. Bruster, 424 F. App’x 912, 915 (11th Cir. 2011). The Court has inherent power “to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution” as

courts must necessarily have authority “to manage their own affairs . . . . ” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 1389, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1962) (quoted in Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d

1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)); see also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1. Furthermore, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has noted that “[w]hile dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of

discretion.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). Here, Plaintiff was forewarned that if he did not comply with this Court’s Order, a recommendation would be made to dismiss this case. ECF No. 6.

Because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case, dismissal is appropriate.

Case No. 4:26cv91-RH-MAF Page 3 of 3 RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED for

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court Order. IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on April 24, 2026.

S/ Charles A. Stampelos1 CHARLES A. STAMPELOS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not control. If a party fails to object to the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

1 Magistrate Judge Stampelos has signed this Order during the temporary absence of Magistrate Judge Martin A. Fitzpatrick who is assigned to this case. Case No. 4:26cv91-RH-MAF