MORALES v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Filing 8

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the court. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH M TIMOTHY on 1/12/2010. R&R flag set (Internal deadline for referral to district judge if objections are not filed earlier: 2/9/2010.) (djb)

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION SEPHI-OMAR MORALES, Plaintiff, vs. Case No.: 3:09cv497/MCR/EMT

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., Defendants. __________________________________/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). By order of this court dated November 9, 2009, Plaintiff was given thirty (30) days to pay the filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3). Plaintiff failed to pay the fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis by the deadline; therefore, on December 14, 2009, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause, within twenty (20) days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court (Doc. 6). The time for compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed, and Plaintiff has failed to respond. Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED: That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the court. At Pensacola, Florida, this 12th day of January 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court's internal use only. A copy of objections shall be served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988).

Case No: 3:09cv497/MCR/EMT