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

JUSTIN DANIELLS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 3:22-CV-232-WHA-KFP ) RUSSELL COUNTY JAIL, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se Plaintiff Justin Daniells, an inmate at the Russell County Jail in Phenix City, Alabama, filed this

Complaint on April 29, 2022. By Order of May 6, 2022, the undersigned directed Plaintiff to pay the $402.00 filing and administrative fees or file a proper motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) by May 27, 2022. Doc. 3. The Court also informed Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the Order would result in dismissal of this action.

. To date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or filed an IFP motion. He also has not 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 Order, the undersigned concludes this case should be dismissed without prejudice. Moon v. Newsome,

(11th Cir. 1989) (stating that, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is generally 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.

Further, it is ORDERED that by June 30, 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 16th day of June, 2022.

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