Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00057/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00057-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EVA V. REED, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-00057-KD-B

: 

WALMART STORES, INC., :

 :

Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute (Doc. 35). This motion has 

been referred to the undersigned for a report and recommendation 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c). 

Based upon a careful review of Defendant’s motion and the case 

file, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s motion be 

GRANTED and that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without 

prejudice.

I. Background

On November 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed suit in the Circuit 

Court of Mobile County, Alabama, alleging negligence and 

wantonness against Defendant Walmart Stores, Inc. (hereinafter 

“Walmart”) arising out of a slip and fall accident that occurred 

on September 17, 2014. (Doc. 1-1). On February 5, 2016, 

Defendant removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1441 and 1446, alleging diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332. (Doc. 1). 

Case 1:16-cv-00057-KD-B Document 37 Filed 11/29/16 Page 1 of 5
2

On October 18, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to 

withdraw, citing his inability to continue zealously 

representing Plaintiff pursuant to the Alabama Rules of 

Professional Conduct. (Doc. 28). In an order dated October 21, 

2016 (Doc. 30), the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion 

to withdraw and gave Plaintiff leave until November 3, 2016, to: 

(1) retain new counsel and have her new counsel file a written 

notice of appearance with this Court, or (2) advise the Court, 

in the form of a written pleading pursuant to Local Rule 5.1, of 

her intent to proceed pro se no later than November 3, 2016. 

(Id.). The Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply

with the Order would result in a recommendation that her claims

be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Id. at 2). 

Despite the Court’s order, no attorney filed a written 

notice of appearance on behalf of Plaintiff, nor did Plaintiff 

advise the Court, in writing or otherwise, of her desire to 

continue with this action without the aid of counsel. 

Consequently, on November 10, 2016, the Court issued a show 

cause Order requiring Plaintiff to show cause by November 28, 

2016, why the action should not be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute and failure to obey an Order of this Court. (Doc. 

36). Plaintiff was advised that failure to file a written 

response to the Order by the given date would be considered by 

the Court an abandonment of the prosecution of this action by 

Plaintiff and would result in a recommendation that this case be 

Case 1:16-cv-00057-KD-B Document 37 Filed 11/29/16 Page 2 of 5
3

dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with 

the Court’s directives, without further notice.

II. Analysis

A review of the docket reflects that, despite the Court’s 

Orders on October 21, 2016, and November 10, 2016, directing 

Plaintiff to notify the Court in writing whether she intends to 

proceed with this litigation, no attorney has filed a written 

notice of appearance on behalf of Plaintiff, nor has Plaintiff 

advised the Court, in writing or otherwise, of her desire to 

continue “pro se.” Indeed, Plaintiff has filed no response 

whatsoever to the Court’s orders, despite clear directives from 

the Court to do so and warnings of the consequences of failure 

to do so. The Court further notes that Plaintiff’s copies of 

the Orders have not been returned to the Court as undeliverable. 

“District courts possess inherent power to sanction errant 

litigants before them.” Hudson v. Cardwell Corp., 2006 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 55306, *3, 2006 WL 2135791, *1 (S.D. Ala. July 27, 

2006). While “[p]ro se pleadings are held to a less stringent

standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, 

therefore, be liberally construed,” Tannenbaum v. United States, 

148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998), this does not extend to a 

pro se litigant’s failure to comply with federal procedural 

rules, local court rules, or orders of the court. See, e.g., 

Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 Fed. Appx. 802, 802 (11th 

Cir. 2006) (affirming sua sponte dismissal of pro se action for 

failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order, where 

Case 1:16-cv-00057-KD-B Document 37 Filed 11/29/16 Page 3 of 5
4

litigant was forewarned that failure to comply with the court’s 

order could result in dismissal.). Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b) expressly authorizes the involuntary dismissal 

of a claim due to a plaintiff’s failure to abide by court orders 

or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., State 

Exchange Bank v. Hartline, 693 F.2d 1350, 1352 (11th Cir. 1982) 

(“The Federal Rules expressly authorize a district court to 

dismiss a[n] . . . entire action for failure to prosecute or 

obey a court order or federal rule.”). Moreover, the power of a 

court to dismiss a claim “is inherent in a trial court’s 

authority to enforce its orders and ensure prompt disposition of 

legal actions.” Id. 

Due to Plaintiff’s repeated failure to comply with this 

Court’s Orders (Docs. 30, 36) and failure to prosecute this 

action, and upon consideration of the alternatives that are 

available to this Court, the Court finds that no other lesser 

sanction than dismissal without prejudice will suffice.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that this action 

be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as no other lesser sanction 

will suffice.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on 

all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who 

objects to this recommendation or anything in it must, within 

Case 1:16-cv-00057-KD-B Document 37 Filed 11/29/16 Page 4 of 5
5

fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file 

specific written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); S.D. ALA. GenLR 

72(c). The parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 

3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge’s 

findings or recommendations contained in a report and 

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district 

court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal 

conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for 

objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. 

In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may 

review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests 

of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be specific, an 

objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation 

to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, 

and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An 

objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the 

briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific.

DONE this the 29th day of November, 2016.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00057-KD-B Document 37 Filed 11/29/16 Page 5 of 5