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

ANTHONY NEFF, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 3:24-CV-92-ECM-KFP ) LEE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, ) ) Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff filed this

action on February 12, 2024. On February 21, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to pay the required fees or file an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with the required documentation from his jail account. The Order specifically warned that a failure to comply would result in recommendation of dismissal. Doc. 3. To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Order. Because of Petitioner’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order, 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 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. Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. It is further ORDERED that by April 8, 2024, the parties may file written objections to this Recommendation. An objecting party must identify the specific portion of the

factual findings or legal conclusions to which the objection is made and must describe in detail the basis for the objection. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered. The Recommendation if not a final order and, therefore, is not appealable. Failure to file a written objection to this Recommendation shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of any factual findings or legal conclusions

contained herein and shall waive the right of the party to challenge on appeal any subsequent order that is based on factual findings and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1. DONE this 25th day of March, 2024.

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