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

RODNEY TERRELL BROWN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:20-CV-955-ECM-SRW ) [WO] DERIUS LEWIS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se Plaintiff Rodney Brown filed this

action on November 19, 2020. Defendants have since filed an answer, written reports with supplement, and supporting evidentiary materials denying Plaintiff’s allegations. Docs. 30, 36. On October 8, 2021, the Court instructed Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ materials by October 29, 2021. Doc. 37. 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 or otherwise complied with the Court’s October 8, 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 October 8, 2021, order. In light of Plaintiff’s disregard for orders of this Court, the undersigned further finds that 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 the parties may file any objections to the Recommendation on or before February 8, 2022. 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, on this the 25th day of January, 2022.

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