Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-11751/USCOURTS-ca11-15-11751-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gwendolyn B. Taylor
Appellee
Warren Adam Taylor
Appellant

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-11751

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-00231-JRH-BKE

WARREN ADAM TAYLOR, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant.

 versus

AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY

CONSOLIDATED COMMISSIONERS, et al.,

Defendants,

J. PATRICK CLAIBORNE,

Third Party Defendant,

GWENDOLYN B. TAYLOR,

 Third Party Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(October 7, 2015)

USCA11 Case: 15-11751 Date Filed: 10/07/2015 Page: 1 of 3
2

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Warren Taylor appeals pro se the dismissal of his complaint about violations

of his civil rights, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and of the Americans with Disabilities Act,

Act, id. § 12101, et seq., by his former wife, Gwendolyn Taylor; her attorney, J. 

Patrick Claiborne; and officials of Augusta-Richmond County. The district court 

dismissed Taylor’s complaint for failure to prosecute. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Taylor’s 

complaint, even if the ruling was tantamount to a dismissal with prejudice. Taylor 

filed three requests for a judgment of default, despite being told repeatedly by the 

district court that none of the defendants were in default. Taylor failed to comply 

with the order of the district court to respond to a motion to dismiss his complaint, 

even after the district court sua sponte granted Taylor an extension of time. See 

Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 483 (11th Cir. 2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Rather than respond to the motion to dismiss, Taylor objected to the denial of his 

request for a judgment of default and asked the district court to vacate and remand 

his action to this Court. And Taylor ignored the warnings of the district court that, 

pursuant to a local rule, S.D. Ga. Local R.41.1, it would dismiss his complaint for 

failure to prosecute if he willfully disobeyed or ignored the order to respond. See

USCA11 Case: 15-11751 Date Filed: 10/07/2015 Page: 2 of 3
3

Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). Dismissal was an 

appropriate remedy based on Taylor’s delay and willful conduct.

We AFFIRM the dismissal of Taylor’s complaint.

USCA11 Case: 15-11751 Date Filed: 10/07/2015 Page: 3 of 3