Reeves v. Shriver et al

Filing 4

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 12/12/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 11/25/24. (loh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
DANIEL REEVES,
on behalf of Dana Reeves,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
CV 124-168
)
THE HONORABLE ROB SHRIVER, OPM )
Director, and THE HONORABLE
)
CHARLOTTE A. BURROWS, EEOC Chair, )
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________________________
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
_________________________________________________________
On September 18, 2024, Plaintiff Daniel Reeves filed a complaint on behalf of his

daughter, Dana Reeves, and paid the $405.00 filing fee in the above-captioned case. (See doc.
no. 1 & dkt. entry.) The complaint alleges disability discrimination because Ms. Reeves has
attempted unsuccessfully to obtain federal government employment over the past ten years.
(See doc. no. 1.) Upon initial review of Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court observed that while
the complaint alleged Ms. Reeves is disabled, the complaint did not establish Ms. Reeves is
incompetent such that Mr. Reeves could bring suit on his daughter’s behalf under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 17. (Doc. no. 3, p. 1.) Moreover, the Court noted if Ms. Reeves is
incompetent such that Mr. Reeves could proceed on her behalf, he could not do so pro se. (Id.
at 2.) Accordingly, the Court ordered Plaintiff to complete one of the following tasks on or
before November 17, 2024:

1. If Dana Reeves is competent, she must file a motion to substitute herself
as the sole Plaintiff.
2. If Dana Reeves is incompetent, Daniel Reeves must retain legal counsel
to file an amended complaint by the same deadline that sufficiently
identifies the basis for Daniel Reeves proceeding on behalf of Dana
Reeves under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c).
(Id.) Moreover, the Court warned Plaintiff failure to comply with this Order will result in
dismissal without prejudice. (Id.) The time to respond has passed, and Plaintiff has neither
complied with the October 17th Order nor otherwise offered any explanation to the Court why
Plaintiff has not complied.
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) (“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(c). Finally, dismissal
without prejudice is generally 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 Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 331 F. App’x 654, 655 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing Moon v.

2

Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989)); see also Loc. R. 41.1(b) (Court may dismiss
an action sua sponte for “willful disobedience or neglect of any order of the Court”).
Here, Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Court’s October 17th Order, or even to provide
the Court with an explanation for Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond, amounts not only to a
failure to prosecute, but also an abandonment of this case. This is precisely the type of neglect
contemplated by the Local Rules. Moreover, the Court cautioned Plaintiff that a failure to
respond would be an election to have this case voluntarily dismissed.
In sum, the time to respond has passed, and Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s
October 17th Order. Therefore, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS this case be
DISMISSED without prejudice and that this civil action be CLOSED.
SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of November, 2024, at Augusta,
Georgia.

3