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

LUTHER STEVEN MONTGOMERY JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) CIV. ACT. NO. 1:24-cv-116-TFM-C ) CODY P. DANIELS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On May 23, 2024, the Magistrate Judge entered a report and recommendation which recommends this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to comply with the court’s orders. See Doc. 5. No objections were filed and the time frame has passed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes dismissal of a complaint for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order or the federal rules. Gratton v. Great Am. Commc’ns,

, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999). Further, such a dismissal may be done on motion of the defendant or sua sponte as an inherent power of the court. Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada,

(11th Cir. 2005). “[D]ismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.” Vil v. Perimeter Mortg. Funding Corp.,

, 915 (quoting Moon v. Newsome,

(11th Cir. 1989)). “[E]ven a non-lawyer should realize the peril to [his] case, when [he] . . . ignores numerous notices” and fails to comply with court orders. Anthony v. Marion Cty. Gen. Hosp.,

(5th Cir. 1980); see also Moon,

(As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.). Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its “inherent power” to “dismiss [Plaintiff’s claims] sua sponte for lack of prosecution.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

,

,

(1962); see also Betty K Agencies, Ltd.,

(describing the judicial power to dismiss sua sponte for failure to comply with court orders). Since the filing of her complaint on April 15, 2024, Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or file a properly completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis despite an order to do so. See Doc.

4. In fact, the Magistrate judge noted certain issues on the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

Specifically, over the course of time, Plaintiff’s indigent status has been brought into question given his six previous lawsuits. Id. at 1-3. These are valid concerns and the Plaintiff failed to address them. Even after the Report and Recommendation was issued and Plaintiff was put again on notice of his failure, he did not correct the deficiency. Nothing has been heard from the Plaintiff since the initial filing of the initial complaint. Accordingly, after due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure

to prosecute and obey the Court’s orders under Rule 41(b). A separate judgment will issue pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of July, 2024. /s/Terry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE