Pierre v. Charlotte County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 17

ORDER dismissing case. With no remaining claims, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE the file and enter judgment accordingly. The Clerk is further directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 2/3/2015. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
WILBERT PIERRE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:14-cv-412-FtM-38CM

CHARLOTTE COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, BILL CAMERON, WILLIAM
PRUMELL, 20TH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT COURT and STATE OF
FLORIDA,
Defendants.
/
ORDER1
Plaintiff Wilbert Pierre, pro se, filed a Complaint against Defendants Charlotte
County Sheriff’s Office, Bill Cameron, William Prumell, 20th Judicial Circuit Court, and the
State of Florida on July 25, 2014. (Doc. #1). Pierre did not timely file a notice of service
on the docket. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). As a result, the Court issued an order to show
cause on January 9, 2015 (Doc. #16) as to why this case should not be dismissed for
failure to prosecute. The Court warned that failure to show good cause by January 30,
2015, would result in this matter being dismissed. To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond
to the Court’s Order to Show Cause. Accordingly, this matter is due to be dismissed for
failure to prosecute. Link v. Washbash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (“The

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this court does not endorse,
recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web
sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court
accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink
ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been
considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control
necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases.”); see also Krinsk v. SunTrust Bank, No. 8:09-cv-00909T-27MA, 2014 WL 202032, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2014) (dismissing a claim with
prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with a court order).
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. With no remaining claims, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE the file and enter judgment accordingly. The
Clerk is further directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 3rd day of February, 2015.

Copies: All Parties of Record

2