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

ANDREA DUHREAL FLAGG, ) #310705, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 1:22-cv-267-WHA-JTA ) W.G. JONES, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Andrea Duhreal Flagg, proceeding pro se, filed this

action.1 (See Doc. No. 1.) On September 1, 2022, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by September 15, 2022. (Doc. No. 12.) The Court specifically cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply with that Order would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. However, the September 15 deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has neither complied with nor otherwise responded to the Order. Because Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint as directed, the undersigned concludes this case should be dismissed without prejudice. See Moon v. Newsome,

(11th Cir. 1989) (noting that “dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of

1 Under the prison mailbox rule, a pro se prisoner’s court filing is deemed filed on the date it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing. See Garvey v. Vaughn,

, 783 (1993). Absent evidence to the contrary, the Court must “assume that a prisoner delivered a filing to prison authorities on the date that he signed it.” Jeffries v. United States,

(11th Cir. 2014). Plaintiff signed his Complaint on April 24, 2022. (Doc. No. 1 at 4.) discretion”) (citations omitted). 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. Co.,

, 629–30 (1962). This authority “is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.”

It further empowers the courts “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”

at 630–31. In this instance, where Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint despite the Court’s clear admonition, the undersigned finds that sanctions lesser than

dismissal would not suffice. See Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op of Fla.,

, 102 (11th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDS this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. It is further ORDERED that, by October 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. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, is not appealable. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s 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 on grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright,

(Sth Cir. 1982); 11th Cir. R. 3-1. See Stein v. Reynolds Sec., Inc.,

(11th Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala.,

(11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). DONE this 27th day of September, 2022.

USHA T. ADAMS / UWITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE