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

JOSHUA WATSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 3:22-CV-215-WHA-CSC ) [WO] RUSSELL CTY. JAIL, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prisoner detained at the Russell County Jail, filed this pro se

action on April 29, 2022. By Order of May 16, 2022, the undersigned directed Plaintiff to file, by May 31, 2022, either the $402.00 filing and administrative fees or a proper motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Doc. 3. The Court also informed Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the May 16 Order would result in dismissal of this action.

. To date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or filed an IFP motion. Nor has he filed a motion for extension of time or otherwise attempted to justify his failure to do so. Because of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s May 16 Order, the undersigned concludes this case should be dismissed without prejudice. Moon v. Newsome,

(11th Cir. 1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.). The authority of courts to impose sanctions for failure to prosecute or obey an order is longstanding and acknowledged by Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

, 629–30 (1962). This authority empowers the courts “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”

at

630–31; Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op of Fla.,

, 102 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding that “[t]he district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.”). “The sanctions imposed [upon dilatory litigants] can range from a simple reprimand to an order dismissing the action with or without prejudice.” Id. Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS this case be DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is ORDERED that by June 22, 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, this 8th day of June, 2022.

/s/ Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE