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

JAMES C. ADAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 3:21-CV-631-RAH-CSC ) ANDRE BRUNSON and ) WAYNE ELLIS, ) ) Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff James C. Adams filed this pro se

action in September 2021. Doc. 1. Thereafter, Defendants filed a Special Report and Answer, with supporting evidentiary materials, denying Plaintiff’s claims. Doc. 19. Accordingly, on February 15, 2023, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ filings on or before March 8, 2023. Doc. 23. The Court specifically cautioned Plaintiff that, if he failed to file a response, the Court would treat that failure as an abandonment of the Complaint and a failure to prosecute this action, and the undersigned Magistrate Judge would recommend dismissal of this case.

. Nevertheless, nearly two months have passed since the imposed deadline, and Plaintiff has failed to file a response. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Order, 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 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 comply 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 that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. It is further ORDERED that, on or before May 16, 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. 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, Ala.,

(11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). DONE the 2nd day of May, 2023.

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