Poiroux v. Mobile County Sheriff Office

• Court: District Court, S.D. Alabama
• Decided: July 26, 2021
• Docket: 1:21-cv-00080
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

WESLEY M. POIROUX, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 21-0080-TFM-N

MOBILE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al, :

Defendant(s). :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, Wesley M. Poiroux, an Alabama inmate proceeding pro se, filed the instant case alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). This case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and S.D.Ala.Gen. LR 72(a)(2)(R) for appropriate action. Because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute and to comply with the Court’s Order dated May 14, 2021, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice. On February 24, 2021, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to file this Court’s form for a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee by March 23, 2021 (Doc. 3). On April 13, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension until May 13, 2021 to file the motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee (Doc. 4). On or about May 6, 2021, the Court received notice that the copy of the order sent to Plaintiff at his last known address, Fountain Correctional Facility, had been returned and was marked “RETURN TO SENDER NO LONGER HERE”. (Doc. 5). A review of the Alabama Department of Corrections website indicated that Plaintiff was still incarcerated at Fountain Correctional Facility. The Court then granted Plaintiff a second extension until June 14, 2021 to file the motion or pay the filing fee. (Doc. 6) Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s orders. Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in a recommendation that this action would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to obey the Court’s order. Due to this failure, the Court construes the lack of a response as an indication that Plaintiff is no longer interested in proceeding with his action.

As a consequence of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court's Order and to prosecute this action, and upon consideration of the alternatives that are available to the Court, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as no other lesser sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R. R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (interpreting Rule 41(b) not to restrict the court's inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte an action for lack of prosecution); World Thrust Films, Inc. v. International Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454, 1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983). Accord Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (ruling that federal courts' inherent power to manage their own proceedings authorized the imposition of attorney's

fees and related expenses as a sanction); Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545-46 (11th Cir.) (finding that the court’s inherent power to manage actions before it permitted the imposition of fines), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 863, 114 S.Ct. 181, 126 L.Ed.2d 140 (1993). Notice of Right to File Objections A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in it must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(c). The parties

should note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination is

found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific. DONE this 26th day of July, 2021.

s/KATHERINE P. NELSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE