JACKSON v. DIXON et al

Filing 49

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - The report and recommendation, ECF No. 47 , is accepted and adopted as this Court's opinion. Plaintiff's operative complaint, ECF No. 42 , is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, "Plaintiff's operative complaint, ECF No. 42 , is DISMISSED without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute." Plaintiff's "Petition to Transfer to Proper Venue," ECF No. 43 , is DENIED as moot.The Clerk shall close the file. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE MARK E WALKER on 7/8/24. (sjb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION DOUGLAS MARSHALL JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 4:23cv437-MW/MJF RICKY DIXON, et al., Defendants. ___________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge’s Second Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 47,1 and has also reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 48. The Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s operative complaint be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Plaintiff failed to comply with orders from this Court. ECF No. 47 at 5. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge explains that he twice directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on this Court’s form, yet Plaintiff failed to comply. Id. at 4. This Court agrees that Plaintiff failed to comply with reasonable orders. The Magistrate Judge gave Plaintiff two chances to file an amended complaint on this 1 The Magistrate Judge withdrew his first Report and Recommendation and issued the subject Report and Recommendation to address Plaintiff’s response, ECF No. 46. Court’s form, yet Plaintiff failed to comply. The Magistrate Judge then ordered Plaintiff to show cause for this failure, but, to date, Plaintiff has still not explained why he declined to file an amended complaint on this Court’s form. Plaintiff raises several objections, but they do not help his case. Again, Plaintiff does not explain why he declined to follow this Court’s orders to file an amended complaint on this Court’s form—not in a response to the Magistrate Judge’s order to show cause, his response to the first Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 46, nor in his objections to the second Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 48. This kind of open defiance of multiple orders from this Court merits dismissal without prejudice. Nor does Plaintiff’s insistence that this case be transferred back to the Southern District of Florida change this result. For the same reasons this case was transferred to this district on the first place, see ECF No. 13, this case is still properly before this Court. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The report and recommendation, ECF No. 47, is accepted and adopted as this Court’s opinion. 2. Plaintiff’s operative complaint, ECF No. 42, is DISMISSED without prejudice. 3. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Plaintiff’s operative complaint, 2 ECF No. 42, is DISMISSED without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.” 4. Plaintiff’s “Petition to Transfer to Proper Venue,” ECF No. 43, is DENIED as moot. 5. The Clerk shall close the file. SO ORDERED on July 8, 2024. s/Mark E. Walker Chief United States District Judge 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?