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

GLEN A. STACKHOUSE, #150 174, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:21-CV-430-WKW-SRW ) [WO] LT. SEWELL, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se Plaintiff Glen Stackhouse filed this

action on June 23, 2021. Defendants have since filed an answer, written report, and supporting evidentiary materials denying Plaintiff’s allegations. Doc. 13. On November 4, 2021, the Court instructed Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ materials by November 29, 2021. Doc. 14. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to file a response would result in a recommendation this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendants’ materials or otherwise complied with the Court’s November 4, 2021, Order. 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 November 4, 2021, order. In light of Plaintiff’s disregard for orders of this 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 by February 8, 2022, the parties may file objections to this Recommendation. The parties must specifically identify the factual findings and legal

conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the 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 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 upon 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, on this the 25th day of January, 2022.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker Susan Russ Walker United States Magistrate Judge