Cruise v. Medical Clinic of Mobile Jail

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING 8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute & obey the Court's order. Signed by District Judge Terry F. Moorer on 11/30/18. (copy mailed to Plf on 12/3/18) (tot)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
HAROLD DAVID CRUISE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
MEDICAL CLINIC OF MOBILE JAIL,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-cv-294-TM-N

ORDER
On October 16, 2018, the magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation which
recommends this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to
comply with the court’s orders.

See Doc. 8.

Plaintiff filed a document that does not contain

specific objections, but the Court addresses them nonetheless and considers the document in
conjunction with the report and recommendation.

See Doc. 9.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes dismissal of a complaint for failure to prosecute or failure
to comply with a court order or the federal rules.
1373, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999).

Further, such a dismissal may be done on motion of the defendant

or sua sponte as an inherent power of the court.
1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005).

Gratton v. Great Am. Commc’ns, 178 F.3d

Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d

“[D]ismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the

litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.”
(quoting Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989)).

Vil, 715 F. App’x at 915

“[E]ven a non-lawyer should

realize the peril to [his] case, when [he] . . . ignores numerous notices” and fails to comply with
court orders.

Anthony v. Marion Cty. Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164, 1169 (5th Cir. 1980); see also

Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been

Page 1 of 3

forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.).

Plaintiff

was provided numerous opportunities to respond to the Court’s order to file a new § 1983
complaint.
respond.

This included a sua sponte extension with cautionary language on the failure to
See Doc. 6.

The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a document with handwritten notes on the Report and
Recommendation.

See Doc. 9.

In the document Plaintiff states “I’m finished repeating my

efforts trying to keep this lawsuit from dying, too;” “extension was received by petitioner Sept.
28, 2018;” and “Voila, to you, Be on guard, My filing cabinet begins.”

Id. at 1.

He further

continues with “You think you have devised a conspiracy with your clerk which will excuse you
from doing your job;” and “Your pretense at showing good faith can be tracked and verified.”
at 2.

Id.

Finally, he states
O.K. I filed a letter describing exactly what I wanted to the clerk 7-7-2018. She
purposely sent me the wrong form. That simply act then permits the magistrate to
set her own timeline which (from beging [sic] to end) sets her own deadline (by
law) which was past [sic] by the time I got it & shorting [sic] the lawful statute of
limitations. Only once to file within a lawful range requiring copies (before
cancelation) was 10 days. You can’t get copies made on this compound. Anyway
you say “Cruise is cautioned this is his last chance.” To provide copies. “Or case
will be dismissed without prejudice. Now cite me some more law. Better yet, go
back and read the ones you cited.

Id. at 3.

Even reviewing the most recent filing, none of the statements constitute a proper

objection to the report and recommendation.

Even considering those statements, none of them

remedy the deficiencies noted by the magistrate judge.
Plaintiff still has not submitted a complaint on the proper § 1983 form and the Court
adequately warned Plaintiff of the consequences of not responding. Even taking true his statement
that he received the order on Sept. 28, 2018 and yet he still did not file any documents with the
court until after the report and recommendation and even then he does not seek to remedy the

Page 2 of 3

deficiency, but makes unsupported allegations of conspiracy.
Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its “inherent power” to “dismiss
[Plaintiff’s claims] sua sponte for lack of prosecution.”

Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626,

630, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1962); see also Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432
F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005) (describing the judicial power to dismiss sua sponte for failure
to comply with court orders).
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED and
this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to obey the
Court's order.
DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of November, 2018.
/s/ Terry F. Moorer
TERRY F. MOORER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3