Martin v. Wilkes et al

Filing 12

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that Plaintiff's #4 Motion to Appoint Counsel be denied as moot and #6 Amended Complaint, filed by Kendrick R. Martin, be dismissed without prejudice and this civil action be closed. Objections to R&R due by 11/30/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 11/13/2017. (jlh) Modified on 11/13/2017 (jlh). Modified on 12/4/2017 (jlh).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
KENDRICK R. MARTIN

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SCOTT WILKES, Head Warden; ANTONIO )
ROSS, Sergeant over CERT; and SERENA
)
CHANCE, Lieutenant, Individually and in
)
their Official Capacities,
)
)
Defendants.
)

CV 117-127

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

According to Local Rule 4.1, the commencement of a civil action requires compliance
with four specific criteria, including presentation of the original complaint and the
appropriate filing fee, or the original complaint and a petition to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”). If a party fails to satisfy these criteria, “the Clerk shall mark the complaint as to the
date filed and promptly give notice of the omission to the filing party. Failure to comply
within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the date that notice is served by the Clerk may result
in dismissal by the Court.” Loc. R. 4.1(1). On September 13, 2017, Plaintiff, an inmate
incarcerated at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville, Georgia, submitted a complaint to the
Clerk of Court of the Northern District of Georgia without submitting the appropriate filing
fee or a request to proceed IFP. On September 19, 2017, U.S. Magistrate Walter E. Johnson
transferred the case to the Augusta Division as it concerned events occurring at Augusta

State Medical Prison in Grovetown, Georgia. (Doc. no. 5.) On October 12, 2017, the Clerk
sent Plaintiff a deficiency notice concerning the need for an IFP motion or payment of the
filing fee. (Doc. no. 11.) Plaintiff was cautioned failure to cure the filing deficiency within
twenty-one days could result in dismissal of his case. (Id.) However, Plaintiff has not
responded to the Clerk’s notice.
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.,
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)1 (“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). Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements for commencing a civil
action by submitting an appropriate filing fee or motion to proceed IFP with his complaint,
and when given the opportunity to submit the appropriate paperwork, he failed to respond.
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the filing requirements of the Local Rules and his failure to
respond to the Clerk’s deficiency notice amounts not only to a failure to prosecute, but also
an abandonment of his case. Accordingly, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS

1

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh
Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to
October 1, 1981.

2

Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (doc. no. 4) be DENIED AS MOOT, this case be
DISMISSED without prejudice, and this civil action be CLOSED.
SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of November, 2017, at
Augusta, Georgia.

3