Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

RAY CHRIS MOBLEY,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 5:10cv34/RS/EMT

CCA CORRECTIONS CORP. OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Plaintiff commenced this action

by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (doc. 1). Plaintiff subsequently filed an

amended and second amended complaint (see docs. 18, 22). 

To date, Plaintiff Ray Chris Mobley has filed forty-six (46) cases in the Northern District of

Florida. Forty (40) of his cases have been filed since March of 2011. Many of Plaintiff’s cases

contain overlapping claims or allegations that stem from the same incident or operative facts, and

in fact several cases have been dismissed because of this (see, e.g, 5:11cv284/MP/GRJ, dismissed

after Plaintiff failed to show cause why the case should not be dismissed as duplicative;

5:11cv205/RH/GRJ, same; 5:11cv200/RH/GRJ, same; 5:11cv182/RS/GRJ, same;

5:11cv176/RH/GRJ, same). Fourteen of Plaintiff’s cases are currently pending before the

undersigned.1

As early as September of 2011, Plaintiff indicated that he would be meeting with an attorney,

Marie Mattox, for assistance with his litigation efforts (see 3:11cv148/RV/EMT, doc. 18). This

meeting apparently did not come to fruition until November 19, 2011 (see 3:11cv148/RV/EMT,

doc. 22 at 2). Most recently, Plaintiff has indicated that Ms. Mattox “does not wish to be the

1

 3:11cv147/MCR/EMT; 3:11cv148/RV/EMT; 3:11cv179/LAC/EMT; 3:11cv229/LAC/EMT;

3:11cv231/WS/EMT; 3:11cv233/MCR/EMT; 3:11cv291/MCR/EMT; 5:09cv342/MCR/EMT; 5:10cv34/RS/EMT;

5:11cv108/RS/EMT; 5:11cv171/RH/EMT; 5:11cv178/RS/EMT; 5:11cv183/RS/EMT; and 5:11cv202/RS/EMT. 

Case 5:10-cv-00034-RS-EMT Document 39 Filed 01/11/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

attorney of record” but does wish to assist him in some of this cases (see 5:09cv342/MCR/EMT,

doc. 39 at 2). Plaintiff has indicated his intent to voluntarily dismiss any cases that Ms. Mattox

believed failed to state a claim (see 3:11cv148/RV/EMT, doc. 22 at 3). Although Plaintiff’s last

request for an extension of time was granted through December 23, 2011, as of the date of this

recommendation, he has failed to timely file his third amended complaint in this or any of the 13

other cases addressed in the court’s order, file a motion for voluntary dismissal, or take any other

action.2

 This court has been more than generous in allowing Plaintiff extensions of time to sort

through the morass of pending litigation and file his amended complaints. Plaintiff was first directed

to file his third amended complaint in this case on August 17, 2011 (see doc. 29). Further delay is

unwarranted. It appears at this time that Plaintiff is simply unprepared to litigate the volume of

cases he has pending in the manner in which they have been filed. Therefore, dismissal without

prejudice is warranted. 

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or

failure to comply with an order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 11th day of January 2012.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. A copy of objections shall be

served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of

factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir.

1988).

2

 After multiple requests for a “continuance” had already been granted, in December 9, 2011, the undersigned

granted Plaintiff’s request for a continuance in thirteen of his pending cases by way of a single order that was docketed

separately in each action. 

Case No: 5:10cv34/RS/EMT

Case 5:10-cv-00034-RS-EMT Document 39 Filed 01/11/12 Page 2 of 2