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

REX SMITH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 3:22-CV-241-WHA-KFP ) [WO] RUSSELL CTY. JAIL, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff filed a Complaint under

. Doc. 2. On May 19, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 3. On May 31, 2022, the May 19 order was returned as undeliverable. On June 2, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide an updated address by June 16, 2022, and cautioned that a failure to do so would result in a recommendation of dismissal. Doc. 4. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an updated address, moved for an extension of time, or otherwise attempted to justify his failure to do so. Because of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the orders of the Court, the undersigned concludes this case should be dismissed without prejudice. Moon v. Newsome,

(11th Cir. 1989) (stating that dismissal for failure to obey court order is generally not an abuse of discretion where litigant has been forewarned). 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. For the above reasons, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. Further, it is ORDERED that by July 11, 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 27th day of June, 2022.

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