Williams v. Mallard
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS dismissing without prejudice the 1 Complaint filed by Grady Renard Williams, Jr. Objections to R&R due by 7/14/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 6/29/17. (wwp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
GRADY RENARD WILLIAMS,
RICHARD A. MALLARD,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Grady Williams filed his civil rights action against
Effingham County District Attorney Richard Mallard without either a
filing fee or a properly completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP). Doc. 1. In lieu of returning payment or an IFP request, Williams
filed an “international promissory note” for $400, in “settlement of [his]
retail agreement[ ]” with the Court.
Doc. 3. 1
The Court ordered
Williams to show cause why this case should not be dismissed on
As set forth in the Order to Show Cause, this “promissory note” was not William’s
first attempt to stymie the Court’s fee requirements. Doc. 4 at 1-2 (citing Williams v.
Bryson, no. CV416-334 at doc. 3 (filing a “notice” of an “ecclesiastical deed poll . . . for
discharge in accordance with the law” “per curiam divina” in lieu of paying his filing
fee or filed a completed IFP form)). Williams knows that he must either pay to play
or seek to proceed IFP, and refuses to do either. See Williams, no. CV416-334 at
doc. 6 (recommending dismissal of his case on inactivity grounds after Williams
submitted only “plainly frivolous” notices and letters in lieu of a filing fee or IFP
inactivity and, thus, abandonment grounds by no later than June 23,
2017. He has not responded.
This case should be dismissed without prejudice on inactivity and,
thus, abandonment grounds. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); S.D. Ga. L.R.
41.1(c); 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);
Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989);
Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983); Floyd v. United
States, CV491-277 (S.D. Ga. June 10, 1992).
This Report and Recommendation (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
Recommendations.” Any request for additional time to file objections
should be filed with the Clerk for consideration by the assigned district
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
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?