Glover v. Bell et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that this case be Dismissed without prejudice and this civil action be Closed - re 1 Complaint filed by Jacob M. Glover. Objections to R&R due by 1/3/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 12/16/16. (cmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
JACOB MARTIN GLOVER,
JOHN C. BELL, JR., Profit Sharing Plan
Company; JOHN C. BELL JR.;
JOHN B. LONG; and
JOHN R.B. LONG,
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se Plaintiff brought the above-captioned case and sought leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. no. 2.) Because Plaintiff provided incomplete information
yet again, 1 the Court denied Plaintiff IFP and ordered he remit the full $400.00 filing fee.
(Doc. no. 4.) Plaintiff’s time to comply with the Court’s order has expired and Plaintiff has
not remitted the filing fee. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply would result in a
recommendation that his case be dismissed. (Id. at 2-3.)
A district court has authority to manage its docket to expeditiously resolve cases, and
this authority includes the power to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or failure to
comply with a court order. Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv.,
Plaintiff was warned in four previous cases his dishonesty would not be tolerated
and he was required to provide complete financial information. See e.g., Glover v. Sentinel
Offender Servs., CV 116-154, doc. no. 4 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 16, 2016).
Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)); see also Hyler v.
Reynolds Metal Co., 434 F.2d 1064, 1065 (5th Cir. 1970) (“It is well settled that a district
court has inherent power to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute . . . .”). Moreover, the
Local Rules of the Southern District of Georgia dictate that an “assigned Judge may, after
notice to counsel of record, sua sponte . . . dismiss any action for want of prosecution, with
or without prejudice . . . [for] failure to prosecute a civil action with reasonable promptness.”
Loc. R. 41.1(c). Finally, “dismissal without prejudice [is] appropriate” pursuant to Rule
41(b) where a plaintiff has failed to comply with a court order, “especially where the litigant
has been forewarned.” Owens v. Pinellas Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 331 F. App’x 654, 655 (11th
Cir. 2009) (citing Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989)).
Here, because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s order requiring him to
remit the filing fee, dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. Owens, 331 F. App’x at 655.
The Court recognizes Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and acknowledges courts have voiced a
dislike for the harshness of dismissing a pro se case with prejudice prior to an adjudication
on the merits. See, e.g., Minnette v. Time Warner, 997 F.2d 1023, 1027 (2d Cir. 1993);
Dickson v. Ga. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, No. 1:06-CV-1310-JTC, 2007 WL 2904168,
at *6 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 3, 2007). Thus, the Court is not persuaded that it would be appropriate
to dismiss the instant action with prejudice. The Court is not permanently barring Plaintiff
from bringing a meritorious claim. It is simply recommending dismissing the case without
prejudice until such time as Plaintiff is willing to file his case and pursue it.
Accordingly, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS that this case be
DISMISSED without prejudice and this civil action be CLOSED.
SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of December, 2016, at
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?