Smith v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

TODD SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:20-cv-2936-CEH-CPT

AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING, INC. and CORELOGIC BACKGROUND DATA, LLC,

Defendants.

ORDER This matter is before the Court upon periodic review. Because Plaintiff has failed to timely file an Amended Complaint, despite being given the opportunity to do so, this action is due to be dismissed without prejudice. DISCUSSION A district court may dismiss a plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Rule 41(b) or the court’s inherent authority to manage its docket. Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). Under Rule 41(b), “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss this action or any claim against it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that a district court may dismiss an action sua sponte for the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his case or obey a court order under Rule 41(b). Betty K Agencies, Ltd., 432 F.3d at 1337. On September 13, 2021, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint as a shotgun pleading. Doc. 73. Additionally, the Court noted that Plaintiff’s state law defamation and negligence claims against Defendants would appear to be precluded by § 1681h(e)

of the Fair Credit Reporting Act to the extent his claims relate to a report issued by a consumer reporting agency and in the absence of allegations of malice or willful intent to injure. Id. at 11. The Court’s order dismissed Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice and permitted Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint to try to state a claim against these Defendants. Id. at 13. The Court directed Plaintiff to file his

Amended Complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the date of the order. Thus, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was due on or before October 4, 2021. Id. The Court cautioned that “[f]ailure to file an amended complaint within the time provided will result in the dismissal of this action without further notice.” Id. To date, Plaintiff has

not filed an Amended Complaint, nor sought an extension of time to do so. For failing to comply with the Court’s order by filing an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s action is subject to dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice. 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all motions and deadlines and CLOSE this case. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on October 25, 2021.

Chakene Charts Mo TL ol yell Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties