IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SAUL THOMAS TAYLOR, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 10-00032-KD-B

 :

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES :

and CHILD SUPPORT, et al., : 

 :

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action is before the Court on review. Plaintiff, who is

proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint and a Motion to Proceed

Without Prepayment of Fees on January 19, 2010. (Docs. 1, 2). In

an Order dated January 20, 2010 (Doc. 3), the undersigned observed

that Plaintiff’s motion was deficient in that Plaintiff provided no

information regarding his earnings or his monthly financial

obligations. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion was denied and he was

ordered to file a new motion by February 3, 2010. Plaintiff was

advised that in lieu of filing a new motion, he could pay the $350

statutory filing fee by February 3, 2010. 

Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s directive. A second

Order issued on February 10, 2010 (Doc. 4) which directed Plaintiff

to file a new motion, or pay the $350 statutory filing fee by

February 24, 2010. Plaintiff was expressly cautioned that his

failure to comply with the Court’s Order, within the prescribed

time, would result in the dismissal of this action for failure to

Case 1:10-cv-00032-KD-B Document 5 Filed 02/26/10 Page 1 of 5
2

prosecute and to obey the Court's Orders. 

A review of the docket reflects that Plaintiff has failed to

comply with the Court’s directives. As of today’s date, the filing

fee has not been paid, nor has Plaintiff filed a new motion to

proceed without prepayment of fees. In addition, his copy of the

Court’s Orders have not been returned to the Court. 

District courts possess inherent power to sanction errant

litigants before them, including the power to dismiss an action for

failure to prosecute. See, e.g., Hudson v. Cardwell Corp., Slip

Copy, 2006 WL 2135791, *2 (S.D. Ala. July 27, 2006) (Steele, J.).

While “[p]ro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard

than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be

liberally construed[,]” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262,

1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam), this does not extend to a pro

se litigant’s failure to comply with federal procedural rules,

local court rules, or orders of the court. See, e.g., Brown v.

Tallahassee Police Department, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 3307444, *1 (11th

Cir. Nov. 15, 2006). Rule 41(b) expressly authorizes the

involuntary dismissal of a claim due to a plaintiff’s failure to

abide by court orders or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

See, e.g., State Exchange Bank v. Hartline, 693 F.2d 1350, 1352

(11th Cir. 1982). Moreover, the power of a court to dismiss a

claim “is inherent in a trial court’s authority to enforce its

orders and ensure prompt disposition of legal actions.” Id. See

Case 1:10-cv-00032-KD-B Document 5 Filed 02/26/10 Page 2 of 5
3

also e.g., Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-631, 82 S.

Ct. 1386, 1388-1389, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1962). Dismissal with

prejudice is thus appropriate where the district court finds a

clear record of delay or willful conduct and that lesser sanctions

are inadequate to correct such conduct. See, e.g., Gratton v.

Great American Communications, 178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir.

1999); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985).

Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Court's Orders

(Doc. 3, 4) and prosecute this action, and upon consideration of

the alternatives that are available to this Court, it is

recommended that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as

no other lesser sanction will suffice. See, e.g., Link, 370 U.S.

at 630 (interpreting Rule 41(b) not to restrict the court's

inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte an action for lack of

prosecution).

 The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to this Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 26th day of February, 2010.

 /s/ Sonja F. Bivins 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00032-KD-B Document 5 Filed 02/26/10 Page 3 of 5
1

The Court’s Local rules are being amended to reflect the

new computations of time as set out in the amendments to the

Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, effective December 1,

2009.

4

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within fourteen days of the date of service of

this document, file specific written objections with the clerk of

court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the

district judge of anything in the 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); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738

(11th Cir. 1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir.

Unit B, 1982)(en banc). The procedure for challenging the findings

and recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out in more

detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing

a “Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days1

 after being served

with a copy of the recommendation, unless a different

time is established by order. The statement of

objection shall specify those portions of the

recommendation to which objection is made and the basis

for the objection. The objecting party shall submit to

the district judge, at the time of filing the

Case 1:10-cv-00032-KD-B Document 5 Filed 02/26/10 Page 4 of 5
5

objection, a brief setting forth the party’s arguments

that the magistrate judge’s recommendation should be

reviewed de novo and a different disposition made. It

is insufficient to submit only a copy of the original

brief submitted to the magistrate judge, although a

copy of the original brief may be submitted or referred

to and incorporated into the brief in support of the

objection. Failure to submit a brief in support of the

objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a

Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can

be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the magistrate

judge finds that the tapes and original records in this action are

adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to

this recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is

advised that a judicial determination that transcription is

necessary is required before the United States will pay the cost of

the transcript.

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00032-KD-B Document 5 Filed 02/26/10 Page 5 of 5