Hollis et al v. Baxter et al

Filing 6

ORDER adopting 3 Final Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a lawful order of the Court pursuant to Local Rule 41.3(A)(2), and for failure to inform the Clerk of Mr. Hollis's current address pursuant to Local Rule 41.2(C). Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 3/24/2016. (anc)

Atlanta, No. 1:14-cv-2157-WSD (N.D. Ga. 2014) (ECF No. 2 at 1-2); Harpo v.
Fulton Cty. Sheriff, No. 1:14-cv-2208-WSD (N.D. Ga. 2014) (ECF No. 2 at 1-2).
The Magistrate Judge noted that neither the Complaint nor the IFP affidavit filed
by Mr. Harpo in this case includes any such disclosure. The Magistrate Judge
recommended Mr. Harpo be dismissed without prejudice as a plaintiff and that his
request for permission to proceed IFP be denied without prejudice. (R&R at 2).
The Magistrate Judge noted that Mr. Hollis—who, at the time the R&R was
issued, was in pretrial detention in the Fulton County Jail—did not complete and
sign an IFP affidavit and did not submit the statutorily-required copy of his inmate
account statement for the past six months. (Id. at 2 (citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(2))). The Magistrate Judge recommended Mr. Hollis also be dismissed
without prejudice as a plaintiff and that his request for permission to proceed IFP
be denied without prejudice. (Id. at 2-3).
Neither Mr. Harpo nor Mr. Hollis objected to the R&R. The R&R was
mailed to Mr. Hollis, and was returned as undeliverable [5], presumably because
Mr. Hollis was released from pretrial detention on June 25, 2015. See
http://justice.fultoncountyga.gov/PAJailManager/JailingSearchResults.aspx (last
viewed March 24, 2016; searched for “Hollis, Nicholas”). Mr. Hollis has not
provided to the Court his current address.

2

II.

DISCUSSION
A.

Legal Standard

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams
v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983).
No party objects to the R&R, and the Court thus conducts a plain error review of
the record. See United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983).
B.

Analysis

Under Local Rule 41.3(A)(2), “[t]he court may, with or without notice to the
parties, dismiss a civil case for want of prosecution if: . . . [a] plaintiff . . . shall,
after notice, . . . fail or refuse to obey a lawful order of the court in the case.” LR
41.3(A)(2), NDGa.
The Local Rules also provide that a pro se party’s failure to “keep the
clerk’s office informed of any change in address . . . which causes a delay or
otherwise adversely affects the management of the case shall constitute
grounds . . . for dismissal of the action without prejudice.” LR 41.2(C).
The Court finds no plain error in the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation
that Mr. Harpo be dismissed as a plaintiff because he failed to comply with a

3

lawful order of the Court. See Slay, 714 F.2d at 1095. The Court also finds no
plain error in the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Mr. Hollis be dismissed
as a plaintiff because he failed to submit the statutorily required copy of his inmate
account statement for the past six months. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(2). Mr. Hollis
also must be dismissed under Local Rule 41.2(C) because he failed to inform the
clerk of his current address.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge E. Clayton

Scofield III’s Final Report and Recommendation [3] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a lawful order of the Court pursuant to
Local Rule 41.3(A)(2), and for failure to inform the Clerk of Mr. Hollis’s current
address pursuant to Local Rule 41.2(C).

SO ORDERED this 24th day of March, 2016.

_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4