Price v. Jackson et al

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas Final Report and Recommendation 3 and dismissing this action without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 41.3(A)(2) for failure to comply with a lawful order of the Court. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 2/28/17. (ddm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
ANTHONY A. PRICE,
Plaintiff,
v.

1:17-cv-00042-WSD

SHERIFF TED JACKSON, et al.,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas’
Final Report and Recommendation [3] (“R&R”), recommending this action be
dismissed for failure to abide by a lawful order of the Court.
I.

BACKGROUND
On December 13, 2016, Plaintiff Anthony A. Price (“Plaintiff”) filed a

complaint for civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ([1]). On
January 10, 2017, the Magistrate Judge directed Plaintiff “either to (1) pay the case
initiation fees or (2) submit a fully-completed IFP application – with all required
signatures, certifications, and attachments – within twenty-one (21) days of the
entry date of this Order.” (“January 10th Order” [2] at 1). The Magistrate Judge
warned Plaintiff that “failure to (1) notify the Court promptly of any change of

address or (2) comply fully with any lawful order may result in the dismissal of
this case. See LR 41.2B & LR 41.3A(2), NDGa.” (Id. at 2). Plaintiff did not
respond to the January 10th Order.
On February 10, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued her R&R. In it, she
recommends that the Court dismiss this action for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with
the January 10th Order. Plaintiff did not file any objections to the R&R, and has
not otherwise taken any action in this matter.
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,

2

after notice, . . . fail or refuse to obey a lawful order of the court in the case.” L.R.
41.3(A)(2), NDGa.
Plaintiff failed to comply with the January 10th Order after being advised
that failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. The
Magistrate Judge recommends this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to
comply with the Court’s order. The Court finds no plain error in this finding and
recommendation. Slay, 714 F.2d at 1095. Accordingly, this action is dismissed
pursuant to Local Rule 41.3(A)(2).
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas’

Final Report and Recommendation [3] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE pursuant to Local Rule 41.3(A)(2) for failure to comply with a
lawful order of the Court.
SO ORDERED this 28th day of February, 2017.

3