Hughes v. Geddie et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the U.S. Magistrate Judge that re 1 Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice and this civil action should be closed. Objections to R&R due by 6/5/2023. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 5/19/23. (loh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
JOHN CHRISTOPHER HUGHES,
LEWIS GEDDIE and WARDEN KARL
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On April 24, 2023, Plaintiff, an inmate at Augusta State Medical Prison in Grovetown,
Georgia, submitted a complaint for filing pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. no. 1.) Plaintiff
did not submit the appropriate filing fee or a request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
Upon opening the case, the Clerk of Court sent Plaintiff a deficiency notice concerning the
need for an IFP motion or payment of the filing fee, as is required by Local Rule 4.1. (See
doc. no. 2.) The notice explained failure to correct the deficiency could result in dismissal.
(See id.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the Clerk’s deficiency 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 Eades v. Ala. Dep’t
of Human Res., 298 F. App’x 862, 863 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (“District courts possess
the ability to dismiss a case . . . for want of prosecution based on two possible sources of
authority: Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) or their inherent authority to manage their dockets.”).
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] [w]illful disobedience or neglect of any order
of the Court; or [a]ny other failure to prosecute a civil action with reasonable promptness.”
Loc. R. 41.1 (b) & (c).
Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of the Local Rules when he did not
submit a motion to proceed IFP or pay the filing fee, and when given the opportunity to submit
the appropriate paperwork, he failed to respond to the Clerk’s deficiency notice. Plaintiff’s
failure to comply with the 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 that this case be
DISMISSED without prejudice and that this civil action be CLOSED.
SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of May, 2023, at Augusta,
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?