Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00040/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00040-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

1

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RAYMOND SERRANO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:16cv40-WKW-SRW

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On March 7, 2016, plaintiff was directed to file, within fourteen days, a written 

notice providing sufficient information and proper addresses to allow for service of process 

on the named defendants. (Doc. 6). That deadline has expired, and plaintiff neither filed 

the requisite notice nor requested additional time to comply with the March 7 order. On 

November 9, the court entered an order noting that plaintiff had twice failed to respond to 

court orders in a timely manner. (Doc. 7). In that order, plaintiff was directed to show 

cause by November 22, 2016 why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution 

and for his failure to comply with court orders. (Id.). 

The November 9 order provides, in relevant part, as follows:

Because plaintiff did not provide information that is necessary for the 

prosecution of this case despite being directed to do so, and because 

plaintiff’s failure to respond to the March 7 order marks the second time that 

he did not heed a court-imposed deadline, the court finds that dismissal 

without prejudice because of plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this lawsuit is 

appropriate. That conclusion is bolstered by the fact that plaintiff has taken 

no action in this case since February 26, 2016, and it appears that plaintiff 

has abandoned this litigation. (Doc. 5).

Case 2:16-cv-00040-WKW-SRW Document 9 Filed 11/28/16 Page 1 of 4
2

(Id.). Plaintiff was cautioned that a failure to respond to the November 9 order could result 

in the dismissal of this case. (Id.). The November 22 deadline passed, and plaintiff did not 

file a response to the November 9 order or otherwise contact the court. This is the third

time that plaintiff has ignored a filing deadline set by the court. (See Docs. 4, 5, 7).

The plaintiff’s failure to respond cannot be blamed on his not receiving the 

November 9 order. The Clerk of Court sent the plaintiff copies of the March 7 and 

November 9 orders by certified mail to the address that the plaintiff previously provided to 

the court. By law, the plaintiff is deemed to have received the latest order on November 9, 

the date it was mailed by the Clerk of Court. (Doc. 7). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C) 

(service is deemed completed by “mailing [a court order] to the person’s last known 

address – in which event service is complete upon mailing”). The return receipt card was 

signed by an individual other than the plaintiff – Rosabel Cruz – on November 12, 2016. 

(Doc. 8). Thus, as a practical matter, a copy of the November 9 order was delivered to 

plaintiff’s address of record on November 12 – three days after it was entered. That allowed

the plaintiff an additional 10 days to satisfy the November 22 deadline.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the court may dismiss an action or claim due to a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 

it or to comply with the federal rules or orders of the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “If 

a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order, [the Eleventh] Circuit has held that a district 

court may sua sponte dismiss the case with or without prejudice under Rule 41(b) or its 

inherent powers where there is both a clear record of willful conduct and a finding that 

Case 2:16-cv-00040-WKW-SRW Document 9 Filed 11/28/16 Page 2 of 4
3

lesser sanctions are inadequate.” Levinson v. WEDU TV, 505 F. App’x. 919, 920 (11th 

Cir. 2013); see also Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th 

Cir. 2005) (“The Supreme Court also has held that ‘[t]he authority of a court to dismiss sua 

sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an “inherent power,” 

governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage 

their own affairs[.]’”) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962)).

Plaintiff’s conduct makes clear that he does not intend to proceed on the claims he 

asserts in this action. It has been more than nine months since plaintiff has filed anything 

in this case, despite orders to respond. Also, plaintiff has not otherwise contacted the 

chambers of the undersigned Magistrate Judge to inquire about the status of his case.

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute is not a minor default or omission; it appears that he 

has abandoned his claims entirely. While the court has considered lesser sanctions, it 

concludes that no lesser sanction than a dismissal without prejudice will suffice to remedy 

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action or to comply with the court’s orders. Despite the 

court’s warnings that this case may be dismissed, plaintiff has neither complied with the 

court’s orders nor sought relief from them. Because plaintiff has not responded to the 

court’s communications mailed to his address of record since March 2016, and someone 

other than the plaintiff has signed for his mail, it appears that plaintiff’s address of record 

may no longer be valid; however, plaintiff has not provided the court any forwarding 

address. This case cannot move forward unless the plaintiff participates in it, and plaintiff 

has given the court no indication that he will do so.

Case 2:16-cv-00040-WKW-SRW Document 9 Filed 11/28/16 Page 3 of 4
4

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed herein, the undersigned Magistrate Judge 

RECOMMENDS that this lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(b) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute it or to 

comply with the orders of the court.

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file the Recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge, to serve a copy on the plaintiff by certified mail, and to docket the return receipt. 

The parties are ORDERED to file any objections to this Recommendation on or before 

December 12, 2016. Any objections filed must identify specifically the findings in the 

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or 

general objections will not be considered by the District Court.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in 

the Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the 

District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on 

appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon 

grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, 

Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th 

Cir. 1989).

DONE, on this the 28th day of November, 2016.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

Susan Russ Walker

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:16-cv-00040-WKW-SRW Document 9 Filed 11/28/16 Page 4 of 4