LAIDLER v. HARDY et al

Filing 7

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
DUBLIN DIVISION
SAMUEL LAIDLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
LT. HARDY; WARDEN PROCEROR;
WARDEN CHAMBAL; and WARDEN
BRAGG,
Defendants. 1

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV 324-076

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 the presentation of the original complaint and the
appropriate filing fee, or the original complaint and a petition to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”). When Plaintiff filed his complaint in the Middle District of Georgia prior to transfer
to this District, (see doc. nos. 1, 3), he did not pay the filing fee or submit a motion to
proceed IFP. Upon arrival of the case in the Southern District, the Clerk of Court sent
Plaintiff a deficiency notice on October 24, 2024, regarding the need to pay the $405 filing
fee or file a motion to proceed IFP, and set a twenty-one-day deadline for compliance. (See
doc. no. 5.) 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
The Court DIRECTS the CLERK to update Defendants’ names and titles on the docket in
accordance with the above caption, which is consistent with Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. no. 1, pp. 1, 3.)
1

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 Hum. 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 did not comply with the requirements for commencing a civil action by filing
a complaint unaccompanied by the full filing fee or a motion to proceed IFP, and when given
the opportunity to correct the deficiency, Plaintiff failed to respond to the Clerk’s notice.
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.
In sum, the time to respond has passed, and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or
submitted a motion to proceed IFP as required. Accordingly, the Court REPORTS and
RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice and CLOSED.
SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of November, 2024, at
Augusta, Georgia.

2