Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_14-cv-00541/USCOURTS-alsd-1_14-cv-00541-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Battle House Hotel
Defendant
Gordon Orr
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GORDON ORR, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-00541-KD-B 

BATTLE HOUSE HOTEL, :

Defendant. :

Report and Recommendation 

This action is before the Court on review.1 In an order 

dated November 25, 2014 (Doc. 3), Plaintiff, who is seeking to 

proceed in forma pauperis, was directed to re-file his complaint 

and motion to proceed without prepayment of costs (Docs. 1, 2),

because while both documents were on the forms required by this 

Court, they were incomplete and were not signed. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff was granted leave to re-file a complete complaint and 

motion to proceed without prepayment of fees by December 12, 

2014. Plaintiff was expressly advised that he must personally 

sign any documents that he files with the Court, and that 

failure to comply with the Court’s directives by December 12, 

2014 would result in the dismissal of this action for failure to 

prosecute and to obey the Court’s Order.

 1 This action has been referred to the undersigned for 

appropriate action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 

Local Rule 72.2(c)(4).

Case 1:14-cv-00541-KD-B Document 4 Filed 01/15/15 Page 1 of 3
2

To date, Plaintiff has not re-filed his complaint and motion, 

and his copy of the November 25th order has not been returned to 

the Court. At this juncture, it appears that Plaintiff has lost 

interest in this action and has abandoned the action. 

Given that Plaintiff has made no attempt to comply with the 

Court’s directives, that over a month has lapsed with no contact 

from Plaintiff, and upon consideration of other available 

alternatives, it is recommended that this action be dismissed 

without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure for failure to obey the Court's order and for 

failure to prosecute, as no other lesser sanction will suffice. 

Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (As a 

general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal 

for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of 

discretion.); see also Zow v. Regions Fin. Corp., No. 14-11769, 

2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23321, at *3 (11th Cir. Dec. 11, 

2014)(“[I]f a party disregards an order despite being warned of 

the possible consequences, dismissal is generally not an abuse 

of discretion”); Tanner v. Neal, 232 Fed. Appx. 924 (11th Cir. 

2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of 

inmate's § 1983 action for failure to file an amendment to 

complaint in compliance with court's prior order directing 

amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply); 

Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 8 L. Ed. 

Case 1:14-cv-00541-KD-B Document 4 Filed 01/15/15 Page 2 of 3
3

2d 734 (1962) (interpreting Rule 41(b) not to restrict the 

court's inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte an action for 

lack of prosecution).

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 

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. L.R. 72.4. The 

parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit precedent, “the 

failure to object limits the scope of [] appellate review to 

plain error review of the magistrate judge’s factual findings.” 

Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2013) (emphasis 

in original). 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 14th day of January, 2015.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00541-KD-B Document 4 Filed 01/15/15 Page 3 of 3