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

GABRIEL Q. FRAZIER, ) AIS 273939, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:22-CV-663-MHT-KFP ) C.O./CORPORATE SMITH, ) ) Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se Plaintiff Gabriel Frazier filed this action on November 15, 2022. On December 9, the postal service returned as undeliverable Plaintiff’s copies of previous Orders (Docs. 3, 4) mailed by the Clerk to Plaintiff at his address of record. Accordingly, by Order entered December 15, the Court required Plaintiff, by December 29, to file a current address or show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Doc. 5. The Order specifically advised Plaintiff that this case could not proceed if his whereabouts were unknown and informed him that a failure to comply would result in dismissal. Id. Plaintiff’s copy of the December 15 Order was returned as undeliverable on January 5, 2023. Because of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders, the undersigned concludes this case should be dismissed without prejudice. Moon v. Newsome,

(11th Cir. 1989) (stating that dismissal for failure to obey a 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.” Mingo, 864 F.2d at 102.

For the above reasons, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. Further, it is ORDERED that by January 26, 2023, 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,

(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 12th day of January, 2023.

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