FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MARCH 2, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 05- 1088 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 04-00061 -CV -D -N AL BE RT TH OMA S, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, CL IN TO N C ART ER , I ndiv idual And In His O fficial Ca pa ci ty A s S upe ri nte nde nt, JOYMYR ICK , I ndiv idual And In His O fficial Ca pa ci ty A s D ir ec tor

of S pe ci al E duc at ion , E D RI CH A RD SO N , I ndi vid ua l, D R. JO SE PH B. MO RT O N , I n H is O ff ic ia l C ap ac ity A s S upe ri nte nde nt, ERICA TATUM, In Her In di vi du al AndOffic ia l Capa ci ty, etal., Defen da nt s- App el le es .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Alabam a

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(M ar ch 2, 200 6)On 6 Fe bruar y 2004, the mag istrate judg e orde red Plaintiff to file a n amende d complaint by

16 1 Fe b ruary 2004, beca

use his filed complaint conta ined no fa cts to support his claims. The orde r direc ted Pla i n t i ff t o set his claims out in separate counts statingfor e ach c ount the defe ndant or de fe nd ants a g a ins t who m th e c ount i s b ro ught, the le g a l th e or y up on wh ic h the c ount r e sts , th e fa c ts supporting the claims, and the relief soug ht. Plainti ff r esponded by filing a “Notice of Appe al” of (i) the or der to amend, and ( ii) an orde r deny ing w ithout prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for a ppointment of counsel. The district c ourt treated the “Notice of Appea l” as objections to th es e pretrial nondispositi ve matter s; the objections wer e ove rru l ed. Ag ain on 16 Fe bruar y 2004, Plaintiff was order ed to fi le his amende d complaint by 23 Fe bruar

y 2004; and y et ag ain on 11 Marc h 2004, Pla int if f w a s o rd e re d to fi le hi s ame nd e d c omp la int by 22 Ma rc h 2 00 4 o r f

a c e po ssi ble dis mis sa l. Pla int if f r e sp on de d b y

fi lin gmot ion s to re c us e the ma g istra te and to s tay the pr oc e e din g s. Th os e mot ion s w e re de nie d by or de r date d 24 June 20 04 ; Pla int if f w a s a llo we d ye t ano the r o pp or tun ity to file an amende d complaint. Plaintiff’s amende d complaint, filed 7 Jul y 2004, set out some fac ts but otherwise ignored substantially the mag istrate judg e’s or der a bout form and c ontent. 2 Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, H U L L and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:
Plaintiff-Appellant Albert T hom as, pr oceeding pro se, appeals the dism issal of his com

plaint against the Montgo m ery County Board of E ducation andnam ed indiv idual defendants, in which Plaintiff a lleged viol ations of state and federal law protecting the right s of handicapped child ren. N o reversible er ror has been
s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. The m agistrate j udge recom m ended that Plaintiff’ s com plaint be dis m issed fo r fa ilure to pr ose cu te the a ct ion
. T he m ag istrate j udge r ea ch ed thi s c onc lus ion af te r Pl ai nti ff

tw ic e fa ile d to appe ar

f or sc he dul ed

c onf er en ce s and o the rw ise igno red orders of the c ourt. A fter P laintiff failed to appear at the first scheduled 1Plaintiff’s mother di d appea r at the first scheduled hea ring . Be cause Plaintiff is not a minor and 2 his mother is not a lawyer, the mag istrate judg e informe d Plaintif f’ s mother that she c ould not repr esent he r son or proc eed w ith the action on his behalf. 3 co nf er en ce , P la int if

f w as a dvi se d sp ec if

ic al ly that hi s pe rs ona l a

ppe ar an ce a t the 2
ne xt c onf er en ce w as m an da tor

y and tha t hi s f

ai lur e to a ppe ar w oul d r es ult

in a
re co m m en da tio n f

or dis m iss al of

his c om pla int w ithpr ej udi ce . P la int if

f w as a lso advised sp ecifica lly

that the purpos e of the confer ence w as “ to provid e a
re as ona ble opp ortun ity

f or P la int if f to s howany

c au se w hy

thi s a ct ionsho uld

not be dis m iss ed
. ” A nd, the m ag istrate j udge e nc our ag ed P la int if f to c ont ac t the A la bam a St at e Bar an d th e Mon tgo m er y Co unty Bar w he re P la int if

f co uld be
re fe rr ed to attor ne y s w ithw hom

he c oul d di sc uss - - poss ibl y w ith out c harg e -- the
m er its of his c as e. P la int if

f fa ile d a ga in t o a

ppe ar a t the sc he dul ed

c onf er en ce and offer ed no excuse or explanation for his ref usal to appear. The m agistrate j udge conclud ed that Plaintiff had engaged in a clear pattern of willful contem

pt and recom

m ended his action be dism issed with prej udice based on hi s failure to prosecute. T he m agistrate j udge stated expresslythat lesser sanctions had been considered but wouldnot suffice to rem edy Plaintiff’ s failure to p ar tic ipate in the pr ose cu tio n of his c as e. P la int if

f fi le d ob j ec tio ns t o th e
m ag istrate ’ s r ec om

m en da tio n th at

a lle ge d im

pr opr ie tie s onthe part

of the
m ag i s tra t e; th e o b

je ct i o n s fa i l edt o re s p o n dt o , o r t o ch al l en g e, th e mag i s tra t e’sPlaintiff filed a motion for r econside ration bef ore the district court; rec onsideration wa s denied. 3 Plaintiff appea led the orde r deny ing his mot ion for re consideration. Although we have jur isdiction to r ev i ew only

those judg ments or orde rs that the notice of appea l specifies, e ither expressly or implicitl y , see Club Car, Inc. v. Club Car (Que bec) Import, Inc., 362 F.3d 775, 785 (11 Cir. 2004), th
“ an a pp e a l is no t lo st i f a

mis take is m a de in des ignatingthe jud g me nt a pp e a le d f ro m whe re it i s c le ar t hat th e ov e rr idi ng int e nt wa s ef fe c tiv e ly to a pp e a l” the or ig ina l ju dg me nt, Ki c kli g hte r v . N a ils by J annee , Inc. 616 F .2d 734, 738-39 n.1 (5 Cir. 1980) (interna l quotation and citation omitted), at th le a st whe re a

pp e a l of that ju dg me nt i s ti me ly . B e c a us e Pla int if

f i s a pr o s e lit ig ant, and

be c a us e it a pp e ars he int e nd e d to a

pp e a l th e or de r o f d ism iss a l a s w e ll a s som e no n-f ina l or de rs , w e wi ll c on str ue Pla int if

f’ s n oti c e of

a pp e a l to inc lud e su c h o rd e rs .

4 factual f indin gs, including the determination that Plaintiff’ s acts constitut ed
w ill fu l c ont em

pt. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a dopt ed the m ag ist

rate ’ s r ec om

m en da tio n and dism issed Plaintiff’ s case w ith prejudice. W e re vie wf

or abuse of dis cr et ionthe sua

spo nte dis m iss al of

ac om pla int fo r fa ilure to pr ose cu te
. Mc K el ve y v. A T &T T ec h. , I nc . , 789 F
. 2d 1 518, 152 0 3 (1 1 Ci r. 198 6)
. “ T he c ourt’ s po w er to dis m iss is aninh er en t a spe ct of it s th
au tho ri ty to en fo rc e its or de rs and i nsur e pr om pt d isp osi tio n of

law sui ts. ” G of

orth
v. O w en s, 766 F
. 2d 1 533, 153 5 ( 11 Ci r. 198 5)
. B ut d ism iss al f or f ai lur e to th p r o s e c u t e i s as e v e r e “s an c t i o no f l a s tr e s o rtth a ti s t o b e u t i l i z e do n l y i ne x tr e me
s i tu a t i o n s , ” s e e M o r e w i t z v . We s to f E n g . S h i p O w n e r s M u t
. P r o t
. an dI n d e m. A ss’ n ( L ux. ), 62 F
. 3d 1 356, 136 6 ( 11 Ci r. 199 5) ; si m ple ne gli ge nc e doe s no t th

w ar rant d ism iss al
. S ee Mc K el ve y , 789 F
. 2d at 15 20. Adis tr ic t c ourt m ay , in the pr ope r ex er ci se of

it s di sc re tio n, dis m iss w ithpr ej udi ce ac om pla int f or f ai lur e to pr ose cu te upo n ( 1) c onc lud ing ac le ar r ec or d of de lay or w ill fu l c ont em

pt e xis ts;In his r eply brief, Appellant for the first time c ontends that he was intimi dated by the prospec t 4 of a pp e ari ngunre pr e se nte d a g a ins t App e lle e s who we re re pr e se nte d by c ouns e l; he c la ims a pa nic attack pr evente d his attendanc e at the c onfer ence . Appellant included no me n t i o n o f h is alleg ed incapa ci ty i nh i s o b j ec t i o n s t o th e m agi s tra t e j u d ge’ s d i s m i s s al re co m m en d at i o n . Appellant’s be lated attempted explanation fails to show that the mag istrate judg e abuse d her discr etion. 5 an d ( 2) m ak ing an im

pli ci t or e xpl ic it fi ndi ng tha t l es se r sanc tio ns w oul d no t suf fi ce . S ee , e . g. , G ratto n v. G re at A m er ic anCo m

m uni catio ns, 178 F
. 3d 1 373, 13 74 (11 Cir . 19 99 ); s ee al so Fed .R.Ci v.P . 41 (b ).

th W e cannot say

that an abuse of discretion has been sho wn. Plaintiff wa s
w ar ne d r ep eate dly

that hi s f ai lur e to c om

ply w iththe c ourt’ s or de rs c oul d r es ult in dis m iss al of

his c as e. T he la st s uc h w ar nin g e ve n in cl ude d gu idanc e on p oss ibl e
sour ce s of

f re e le ga l a ssi stanc e. I n th e fa ce of the se w ar

nin gs, P la int if

f, w ith out
ex p l an at i o n , f

ai l edt o ap p ea r f

o r am an d at o ry co n fe re n ce . Th e mag i s tra t e ju d g e’s 4 finding (to which Pla intiff never obj ected) that P laintiff engaged in a “ clear pattern of willful contem

pt” is sup ported by

the rec ord. And the m agistrate j udge no ted
ex p re s s l y th atl es s ers an ct i o n s we re co n s i d er edb u two u l dn o tre m ed y Pl ai n t i ff ’s intransigence. In the light of Plaintiff’ s absences at scheduled hearings and oth er failures to com

ply with orders, together with the m agistrate’ s finding that no lesser
s an ct i o nwo u l ds u ff

i ce , we s ee n o ab u s e o f d i s cr et i o ni nth e d i s m i s s al o f P l ai n t i ff ’s
co m pla int f or la ck of pr ose cu tio n.To the extent that Plaintiff is a ppealingthe denial of

his moti ons for a

ppointment of counsel and 5 for r ecusa l of t he magistrate judge , these iss ues have not been pr operly prese rved f

or appe al. And, even if raised pr operly , n o abuse of discretion has be en shown. “ A plaintiff in a c ivil case ha s no constitutional right to appointment of c ounsel.” See Ba ss v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11 Cir. th 1999). Where, a s here , Plaintiff’s claims appe ar to involve no “ ex ce p tional circumstanc es,” the district court commits no abuse of disc retion by denying a

motion for appointment of counse l. See id. And beca

use no objec tive, disinterested a nd fully informed obse rver

would enter

tain a ser ious do ub t a bo ut t he ma g istrate or dis tr ic t cou rt ’s imp art ia lity in thi s ca se , the re c or d d isc los e s n o b a sis for a rec usal motion. S ee B y rne v. N ezhot, 261 F.3d 1075, 1101 (11 Cir. 2001 ). Plaintiff’s th argument that the mag istrate judg e and district c ourt ac ted wit h o u t j u ri s d i ction afte r the date on which the dist rict cour

t liberally construed his fir st “notice of a ppeal” as an obje ction to the mag istrate’s or der a lso is withoutmerit. Plaintiff w as attemptingto appea l a m agistrate ’s or de r t o this Court; we have no jurisdiction over suc h appea ls
. S ee 2 8 U. S .C. §§ 1291 and 1292. Such “appe als” a

re subjec t to district c ourt revie w. See F ed.R.Civ.P. 72; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). We see no err or i n the di strict court’s upholding of the m ag istrate judge’ s resolution of these nondispositive matters and, in a

ny case , Plaintiff filed no notice of a ppeal of that decision of the district c ourt. 6 W e have c onsi de re d othe r ar gum en ts a dvanc ed by P la int if f an d f ind the m to be w ith out

m er it. 5 AFFIRMED.