IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

PAUL WAYNE JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 1:21-CV-258-RAH-KFP ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On September 16, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the required civil filing or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis by September 30, 2021. Doc. 5. The Court also warned Plaintiff that a failure to comply with the Court’s Order would result in a recommendation of dismissal for failure to prosecute and abide by court orders. Id. Despite this warning, Plaintiff has failed to pay the required filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Therefore, the undersigned concludes this case is due to be dismissed without prejudice. Moon v. Newsome,

(11th Cir. 1989) (stating that dismissal for failure to obey a court order is generally not an abuse of discretion where a litigant has been forewarned); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

, 629–31 (1962) (acknowledging that the authority of courts to impose sanctions for failure to prosecute or obey orders is longstanding and empowers courts “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases”); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op of Fla.,

, 102 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding that a district court “possesses the inherent power to police its docket” and that “sanctions imposed [on dilatory litigants] can range from a simple reprimand to an order dismissing the action with or without prejudice”). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and comply with court

orders. Further, it is ORDERED that by October 21, 2021, the parties may file objections to this Recommendation. The parties must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions to which objection is made. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered by the Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is

not a final order and, therefore, is not appealable. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance with

(b)(1) will bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waive the right of the party to challenge on appeal the District

Court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except on grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright,

(5th Cir. 1982); 11th Cir. R. 3-1. See Stein v. Reynolds Sec., Inc.,

(11th Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard,

(11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).

Done this 7th day of October, 2021.

/s/ Kelly Fitzgerald Pate KELLY FITZGERALD PATE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE