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

REBECCA L. O’BRIEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 1:23-CV-80-ECM-KFP ) CHRISTINE WORMUTH, ) ) Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case was filed on February 7, 2023, but the Clerk’s docket reflects that Defendant has not been served with the Summons and Complaint. The Court issued an Order on May 10, 2023, requiring Plaintiff to show cause by May 24 for her failure to perfect service within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Doc. 6. Plaintiff failed to respond to the Order, and Defendant still has not been served. This case cannot proceed without Plaintiff’s participation, and her failure to prosecute and obey court orders reflect a lack of interest in this case. The authority 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); 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). 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. Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. Further, it is ORDERED that by June 14, 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. See 11TH CIR. R. 3-1.

Done this 31st day of May, 2023.

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