IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

WILLIAM B PRITCHARD,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:20-cv-00223-MAF

ANDREW M. SAUL,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

_________________________/

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This Cause comes before the Court upon sua sponte review of the 

record. Plaintiff, a non-prisoner represented by counsel, filed a complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 42 U.S.C § 1383(c)(3). ECF No. 1. For 

the reasons stated below, the case is due to be dismissed without prejudice 

for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case and failure to comply with court 

orders. The procedural history of this case warrants discussion.

I. Relevant Procedural History

Plaintiff initiated this case on August 24, 2020, by submitting a 

complaint against the Commissioner of Social Security appealing the final 

administrative decision denying his claims. ECF No. 1. The Court granted 

Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directed the Clerk to have 
Page 2 of 4

Case No. 5:20-cv-00223-MAF

the United States Marshals Service serve the Defendant. ECF No. 4. This 

Social Security case was referred to the Undersigned, upon consent of the 

parties by United States District Judge, T. Kent Wetherell. ECF Nos. 6, 7. 

The case was initially stayed for 90 days for Defendant to file his 

answer. ECF No. 10. Defendant filed a second motion to stay the case for 

an additional 90 days, which the Court granted. ECF Nos. 12, 13. Defendant 

filed an answer on April 19, 2021. ECF No. 14. The Court issued an order 

directing Plaintiff to file a memorandum in support of the Complaint no later 

than May 19, 2021, and warned that failure “to file a memorandum 

specifically addressing the claimed error as instructed . . . will be deemed to 

be a failure to prosecute and will result in an Order dismissing the case for 

that reason.” ECF No. 16. To this date, Plaintiff has not filed a memorandum 

in support of his Complaint.

II. Discussion - Dismissal for Failure to Comply with Court Orders.

The Eleventh Circuit has explained that “[a] district court has inherent 

authority to manage its own docket ‘so as to achieve the orderly and 

expeditious disposition of cases.’” Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing 

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

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991)). Such authority includes 
Page 3 of 4

Case No. 5:20-cv-00223-MAF

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). Id.

Dismissal of the complaint is warranted under Rule 41(b). “The legal 

standard to be applied under Rule 41(b) is whether there is a clear record of 

delay or willful contempt and a finding that lesser sanctions would not 

suffice.” Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985) (internal 

quotes omitted); accord. Gratton v. Great American Communications, 178 

F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999). The Court cannot proceed when parties 

fail to comply with the Court’s orders or otherwise fail to prosecute their case.

Plaintiff has not filed a memorandum in support of his complaint as 

directed by the Court and has otherwise failed to prosecute this case. 

Dismissal is warranted.

III. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure comply 

with court orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and N.D. Fla. L. R. 41.1,

and for want of prosecution. See also Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 

(11th Cir. 1989) (“While dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon 

disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, 
Page 4 of 4

Case No. 5:20-cv-00223-MAF

generally is not an abuse of discretion.”). The Clerk is DIRECTED to close 

the case.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on May 24, 2021.

s/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick

MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE