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

ROY WILLIAMS, #306 010, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:21-CV-419-WKW-CSC ) [WO] ADOC/OFFICER J. TAYLOR, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se Plaintiff Roy Williams filed this

action on June 17, 2021. On June 30, 2021, the Court directed Plaintiff to file—by July 14, 2021—a copy of his inmate account statement at the facility where he is detained. Doc. 3. On August 5, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension to August 19, 2021, to comply with the June 30, 2021, Order. Doc. 5. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the orders of the Court would result in a recommendation this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Doc. 3 at 2. To date, Plaintiff has failed to submit his inmate account statement. A federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute or obey a court order. See, e.g., Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

, 629– 30 (1962); FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). The Eleventh Circuit has made clear that “dismissal is warranted only upon a ‘clear record of delay or willful contempt and a finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice.’” Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op of Fla.,

, 102 (11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Goforth v. Owens,

(11th Cir. 1985)). Here, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has willfully failed to file a response in compliance with the Court’s Orders of June 30 and August 5, 2021.

And considering Plaintiff’s disregard for orders of the Court, the undersigned further finds sanctions lesser than dismissal would not suffice in this case. Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. It is ORDERED that objections to the Recommendation must be filed by October

6, 2021. Any objections filed by a party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which objection is made. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. This Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore it is not appealable. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge’s

report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11TH Cir. R. 3- 1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc.,

(11th Cir.

1993); Henley v. Johnson,

(11th Cir. 1989). Done, this 22nd day of September 2021. /s/ Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE