UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 20-10091-CV-KING 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE REID 

DAVID JAMES LOLA, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

MIAMI HERALD INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

_____________________________/ 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

This matter is before the Court on a sua sponte review of the record. This 

cause has been referred to the Undersigned for Report and Recommendation on any 

dispositive matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. Fla. Admin. Order 

2019-2. [ECF No. 2]. 

On August 10, 2020, the Undersigned Ordered Plaintiff to file an amended 

complaint by September 6, 2020. [ECF No. 5]. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure 

to file the amended complaint on time would probably result in dismissal of this 

case. [Id. at 4]. Instead of filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff filed an “Appeal 

and Objections to Order to Amend Complaint,” essentially alleging that his initial 

complaint was properly pled and that he would not file an amended complaint in 

compliance with the Court’s order. [ECF No. 6]. 

Case 4:20-cv-10091-JLK Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 1 of 3
2 

In light of Plaintiff’s objections and his failure to timely file his amended 

complaint, the Court sua sponte extended the time to file an amended complaint on 

September 10, 2020. [ECF No. 9]. In that order, the Court informed Plaintiff that the 

amended complaint deadline was now extended until October 9, 2020. [Id.]. Plaintiff 

was informed that failure to file an amended complaint by October 9, 2020, would 

result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with 

court orders. [Id.]. In response, Plaintiff again filed an “appeal” of the order, arguing 

that he “cannot legally or constitutionally be compelled to file an amended 

complaint.” [ECF No. 11 at 6]. 

This Court has the inherent authority to govern its proceedings. See Chambers 

v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991). Such authority includes the power to dismiss 

a case for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with a court order under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 41(b). See id. See also Equity Lifestyle Props, Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & 

Landscape Servs., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting 

Chambers,501 U.S. at 43). 

 “While dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard of an 

order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse 

of discretion.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). Under these 

circumstances, this case should be dismissed pursuant to the Court’s inherent 

Case 4:20-cv-10091-JLK Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 2 of 3
3 

authority and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the 

Undersigned’s two Orders and for want of prosecution. 

Thus, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 1] be 

DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to 

prosecute and for failure to comply with Court Orders and all that pending motions 

be DENIED AS MOOT. 

Objections to this Report may be filed with the District Judge within fourteen 

days of receipt of a copy of the report. Failure to do so will bar a de novo

determination by the District Judge of anything in the Report and Recommendation 

and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the Magistrate Judge. See 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

SIGNED this 13th day of October, 2020. 

 ____ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

cc: David James Lola 

 18001264 

 Monroe County Jail 

 Inmate Mail/Parcels 

 5501 College Road 

 Key West, FL 33040 

PRO SE 

 

Case 4:20-cv-10091-JLK Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 3 of 3