[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-10164

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

JOHNATHAN HAWTHORNE, 

a.k.a. Jonathan Hawthrone,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-23815-UU

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-10164 Date Filed: 08/04/2022 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 21-10164

Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Johnathan Hawthorne, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, 

appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his 

conviction and sentence. The government has moved for 

summary affirmance and for a stay of the briefing schedule. 

Hawthorne has moved for leave to file a response out of time. For 

the following reasons, we grant Hawthorne’s motion for leave to 

file his response out of time, summarily affirm the dismissal, and 

deny as moot the government’s motion to stay the briefing 

schedule.

I. 

In 2016, a jury convicted Hawthorne of being a felon in 

possession of a firearm and ammunition. The district court, finding 

that Hawthorne was an armed career criminal, sentenced him to 

480 months’ imprisonment. We affirmed Hawthorne’s conviction 

and sentence on direct appeal. United States v. Hawthrone, 759 F. 

App’x. 765, 772 (11th Cir. 2018) (unpublished). 

In 2020, Hawthorne filed a § 2255 motion to vacate, raising 

various grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. A magistrate 

judge issued an initial order of instructions, as well as an order 

identifying several technical deficiencies in Hawthorne’s § 2255 

motion and requiring him to file an amended pleading within 

30 days. The magistrate judge also warned Hawthorne that failure 

USCA11 Case: 21-10164 Date Filed: 08/04/2022 Page: 2 of 5
21-10164 Opinion of the Court 3

to comply with the order by not filing a proper, amended motion

within 30 days may result in dismissal of his case. 

Hawthorne did not file an amended § 2255 motion, nor did 

he request an extension of time. Two weeks after the deadline, the

district court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), dismissed the case 

without prejudice. 

II. 

Summary disposition is appropriate where “the position of 

one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can 

be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, or where, 

as is more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke 

Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

We review a district court’s dismissal for failure to comply 

with the rules of court for abuse of discretion. Betty K Agencies, 

Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). 

“Discretion means the district court has a range of choice, and that 

its decision will not be disturbed as long as it stays within that range 

and is not influenced by any mistake of law.” Id. (quotation 

omitted).

III. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district 

court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or failure to 

comply with a court order or the federal rules. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 838 (11th 

Cir. 1989). Dismissal “upon disregard of an order, especially where 

USCA11 Case: 21-10164 Date Filed: 08/04/2022 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 21-10164

the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of 

discretion.” Moon, 863 F.2d at 837. Ordinarily, a dismissal without 

prejudice is not an abuse of discretion. See Dynes v. Army Air 

Force Exch. Serv., 720 F.2d 1495, 1499 (11th Cir. 1983).

Although we liberally construe pro se pleadings, pro se

litigants are still required to conform to procedural rules. Albra v. 

Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007). And issues “not 

briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” 

Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).

On appeal, Hawthorne reiterates the merits of his 

§ 2255 motion instead of challenging the district court’s dismissal 

of it.1 After the government moved for summary affirmance, 

Hawthorne moved for leave to file an out-of-time response. In his 

proposed response, he contends that summary affirmance is 

improper because, although his § 2255 motion may have been 

technically defective, his claims are substantial in nature. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing 

without prejudice Hawthorne’s § 2255 motion under Rule 41(b)

for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s 

order. See Betty K Agencies, 432 F.3d at 1337. The magistrate 

1 We note that Hawthorne does not need a certificate of appealability to 

appeal because the district court’s dismissal of his motion was not a “final 

order” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), as it did not dispose of the merits of 

his motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Jackson v. United States, 875 F.3d 1089, 

1090 (11th Cir. 2017) (a “final order,” for purposes of § 2253, is an order that 

disposes of the merits of a § 2255 motion). 

USCA11 Case: 21-10164 Date Filed: 08/04/2022 Page: 4 of 5
21-10164 Opinion of the Court 5

judge gave Hawthorne clear and explicit instructions regarding the 

deficiencies in his motion, and she provided him with one month 

to cure them and warned him that failing to comply could result in 

dismissal of his case. 

When Hawthorne did not file an amended § 2255 motion by 

the deadline, the district court waited an additional two weeks 

before dismissing his case. Hawthorne could have filed an

amended § 2255 motion or requested an extension of time during 

that two-week period, but he failed to do either. Because a district 

court’s power to dismiss an action “is an inherent aspect of its 

authority to enforce its orders and insure prompt disposition of law 

suits,” the district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b) was not an 

abuse of discretion. See Dynes, 720 F.2d at 1499 (quotation 

omitted); Moon, 863 F.2d at 837–38. 

Furthermore, no substantial question exists on the outcome 

of this appeal because Hawthorne has abandoned any challenge to 

the district court’s dismissal by failing to raise the issue in his brief 

on appeal. See Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. 

IV. 

Because the government’s position is correct as a matter of 

law, summary affirmance is appropriate. Hawthorne’s motion for 

leave to file his response out of time and the government’s motion 

for summary affirmance are GRANTED, and the government’s 

motion to stay the briefing schedule is DENIED as moot.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 21-10164 Date Filed: 08/04/2022 Page: 5 of 5