Youmans v. Wilcher

Filing 8

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS dismissing 3 Amended Complaint. Objections to R&R due by 5/26/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 5/12/17. (jlm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
SAMUEL YOUMANS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CV417-058

JOHN T. WILCHER, Sheriff,
Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Samuel Youmans, Jr., an inmate at Chatham County Detention
Center, sues Sheriff John T. Wilcher pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc.
3. The Court granted his application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP),
and directed him to return the necessary forms and provide additional
information about his litigation history. Doc 5. He returned the forms.
Docs. 6 & 7. Despite that partial compliance, his failure to fully comply
warrants dismissal.
Youmans did not disclose any prior litigation, see doc. 1 at 1; doc. 3
at 1 (Amended Complaint), but the Court found another action filed by a
“Samuel Youmans.” Doc. 5 at 5. It therefore directed him to submit “a
sworn statement explaining his prior litigation history with this Court,

including whether he filed Youmans v. Chisolm , No. CV412-002, or any

other federal case,” within 30 days. Doc. 5 at 5. The Order expressly
warned that failure to comply would result in a recommendation of
dismissal. Id. Despite that warning, thirty days have passed (on May 8,
2017) and he has not submitted the required statement.
Accordingly, Samuel Youmans, Jr.’s Complaint should be

DISMISSED for failure to comply with the Order or, alternatively,
abandonment grounds.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (authorizing district

court to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order); L.R. 41.1(c)
(authorizing district court to dismiss for lack of prosecution); Link v.

Wabash R.R. Co. , 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (courts have the inherent
authority to dismiss claims for lack of prosecution); Collins v. Lake

Helen, L.P. , 249 F. App’x 116, 120 (11th Cir. 2007) (“[D]istrict court[s]
possess the inherent power to police [their] docket[s]” and to prune out
those cases left to languish by their litigants).
Meanwhile, Youmans must pay his $350 filing fee. His furnished
account information shows that he has had a $113.83 average monthly
balance and $64.16 in monthly deposits in his prison account during the
six months prior to filing his Complaint. Doc. 7 at 1. He therefore owes

2

a $22.77 initial partial filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) (requiring an
initial fee assessment “when funds exist,” under a specific 20 percent
formula). His custodian (or designee) shall set aside 20 percent of all
future deposits from his account and forward same to the Clerk each
time the set aside amount reaches $10.00, until the balance of the
Court’s $350.00 filing fee has been paid in full.
The Clerk is

DIRECTED to send this Report and

Recommendation (R&R) to Youmans’ account custodian immediately. In
the event he is transferred to another institution, his present custodian
shall forward a copy of this R&R and all financial information concerning
payment of the filing fee and costs in this case to his new custodian. The
balance due from Youmans shall be collected by the custodian at his next
institution in accordance with the terms of this R&R.
This R&R is submitted to the district judge assigned to this action,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 72.3.
Within 14 days of service, any party may file written objections to this
R&R with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document
should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendations.” Any request for additional time to file objections

3

should be filed with the Clerk for consideration by the assigned district
judge.
After the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this
R&R together with any objections to the assigned district judge. The
district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are
advised that failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver of
rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v. V.A. Leasing Corp. ,
648 F. App’x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Mitchell v. U.S. , 612 F. App’x
542, 545 (11th Cir. 2015).

SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED , this 12th day of
May, 2017.

-

CMIED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

4