SHOLTZ v. KEEFE COMPANY

Filing 8

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint filed by STEVEN C SHOLTZ: It is recommended - That this case be Dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the court. - Internal deadline for referral to district judge if objections are not filed earlier: 08/31/2009. R&R flag set. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH M TIMOTHY on August 3, 2009. (cbj)

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION STEVEN C. SHOLTZ, Plaintiff, vs. KEEFE COMPANY, Defendant. __________________________________/ 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). On May 29, 2009, Plaintiff was given thirty (30) days in which to pay the filing fee or submit a complete motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5). Plaintiff failed to respond to the order; therefore, on July 6, 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. 7). The time for compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed, and Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee or submit a complete motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 3rd day of August 2009. Case No.: 5:09cv188/SPM/EMT

/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 ten 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: 5:09cv188/SPM/EMT