Miller v. Ruffini et al

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING re 8 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Timothy Ruffini, the Office of the District Attorney, and the Savannah Police Department are DISMISSED. Plaintiff has shown an unwillingness to prosecute h is claim against Defendant Bijian and has failed to obey the Magistrate Judge's order. Therefore, his remaining claims against Defendant Bijian are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 5/9/22. (loh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

SUNDIADAA QRUNDAA MILLER,

Plaintiff,
CASE NO. CV420-292

V.

TIMOTHY RUFFINI, Assistant

District Attorney, In his
Individual Capacity; OFFICE OF
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Chatham

County, Official Capacity;
SAVANNAH POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Official Capacity; and ABBASSI
BIJIAN, Police Officer, In his
Individual Capacity;
Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's August 31, 2021,
Report and

Recommendation

(Doc. 8), to which

Plaintiff has

not

filed objections. After a careful review of the record,^ the Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 8) is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion in
this case. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Timothy Ruffini,

^ The Court reviews de novo a magistrate judge's findings to which
a party objects, and the Court reviews for clear error the portions
of a report and recommendation to which a party does not object.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Merchant v. Nationwide Recovery Serv.,

Inc., 440 F. Supp. 3d 1369, 1371 (N.D. Ga. 2020) (citing Macort v.
Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam)
(outlining
the
standard
of
review
for
report
and
recommendations)).

the

Office

of the

District Attorney,

and

the

Savannah

Police

Department are DISMISSED.

Additionally,

the

Magistrate

Judge

found

that

Plaintiff

failed to state a claim for false arrest against the remaining
Defendant, Abbassi Bijian, but gave Plaintiff an opportunity to
file an amended complaint asserting sufficient facts to state such
a claim. (Doc. 8 at 8.) The deadline to amend

Plaintiff

has

neither

objected

to

the

has passed, and

Magistrate

Judge's

determination nor filed an amended complaint. This Court has the
authority to prune cases from its docket where parties have failed
to comply with its orders. See S.D. Ga. L.R. 41.1(b); see also
Link V. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31, 82 S. Ct. 1386,

1389, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1962) (explaining that courts have the
inherent authority to dismiss claims for lack of prosecution);
Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op. of Fla., 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th

Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (^'The district court possesses the inherent
power to police its docket."); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457,
1458 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). By failing to file an amended

complaint, Plaintiff has shown an unwillingness to prosecute his
claim

against

Defendant

Bijian

and

has

failed

to

obey

the

Magistrate Judge's order. Therefore, his remaining claims against
Defendant

Bijian

are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The Clerk of

Court is DIRECTED to close this case.

SO ORDERED this 9^ day of May 2022.
WILLIAM T. MOORE, KTR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA