United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Walter Rojas, Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. Department of the Army and 

Secretary Ryan D. McCarthy, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 20-22587-Civ-Scola

Order Dismissing Case

The Plaintiff in this matter filed his complaint on June 23, 2020. (ECF 

No. 1.) That same day, the Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in this matter in 

forma pauperis (ECF No. 3), which the Court granted on July 28, 2020 (ECF 

No. 14). In its order, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to file the appropriate 

summonses on the docket for service by the U.S. Marshals. By August 18, 

2020, the Plaintiff had not yet filed the necessary summons on the docket, so 

the Court required the Plaintiff to file the necessary summons on the docket by 

September 8, 2020. (ECF No. 19.) On September 9, 2020, the Plaintiff filed 

summons on the docket for the Attorney General, U.S. Secretary of the Army, 

and the U.S. Department of the Army to be served by the U.S. Marshals. (ECF 

Nos. 28-30.) After the responsive deadline for the Defendants who had 

purportedly been served passed, the Court, upon an independent review of the 

record, determined the Plaintiff had failed to properly serve the Defendants 

pursuant to Federal Rule 4(m). (ECF No. 31.) The Court instructed the Plaintiff 

to cure service on the Defendants by complying with Federal Rule 4 by January

15, 2021 and the Plaintiff timely complied with the Court’s order. Following 

proper service, the Defendants timely responded to the Plaintiff’s complaint by 

filing a motion to dismiss on April 5, 2021. (ECF No. 35.) The Plaintiff’s 

response to the Defendants’ motion was due April 19, 2021 but no response 

was filed. Accordingly, on April 26, 2021, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to 

respond to the Defendants’ motion by May 3, 2021. (ECF No. 36.) The Court 

also ordered the Plaintiff to show cause for his failure to abide by deadlines in 

this matter. (Id.) The court warned the Plaintiff that failure to comply with the 

Court’s order would result in “the dismissal of this action without prejudice and 

without further notice for failure to prosecute.” (Id. (emphasis in original).)

Case 1:20-cv-22587-RNS Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 1 of 2
A district court may dismiss a case, on its own initiative if a plaintiff 

abandons its prosecution of the suit. Compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) with Link v. 

Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). Courts are vested with this 

inherent power “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and 

expeditious disposition of cases” and “to clear their calendars of cases that 

have remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties 

seeking relief.” Link, 370 U.S. 630–31.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has abandoned his prosecution of this 

matter. The Court dismisses this case without prejudice, and directs the Clerk 

of the Court to close the matter.

Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on May 4, 2021.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-22587-RNS Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 2 of 2