Sanders v. Titlemax Corporation

• Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
• Decided: April 2, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-00031
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION BRENDA SANDERS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV425-031 ) TITLEMAX CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Pro se plaintiff Brenda Sanders filed a Complaint alleging that she was subjected to unlawful discrimination when she was not hired by Defendant Titlemax Corporation. See generally doc. 1. Because her application to proceed in forma pauperis is unclear, the Court directed her to supplement it. See doc. 6 at 1-2, 3. Her supplemental application was due March 4, 2025. Id. at 3. That date has passed, and she has not filed anything. See generally docket. This Court has the authority to prune cases from its docket where parties have failed to comply with its orders or to prosecute their cases.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 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). The Local Rules permit the Court, sua sponte, to “dismiss any action for want of prosecution” where there has been “[w]illful

disobedience or neglect of any order of the Court.” S.D. Ga. L. Civ. R. 41.1(b). Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s prior Order. See doc. 6 at 3. Accordingly, her case should be DISMISSED

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 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 1st day of April, 2025. Chatye~d. leg CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA