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

OCTAVIUS DARRELL HAMPTON, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:24-CV-470-RAH-CSC ) SHERIFF BILL FRANKLIN, et al., ) ) Respondents. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner, an inmate incarcerated at the Elmore County Jail in Wetumpka, Alabama, filed this

petition on August 7, 2024. On August 13, 2024, the undersigned entered an Order directing Petitioner to pay the required filing fee or to file an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with the required documentation from his prison account and specifically warning Petitioner that a failure to comply would result in recommendation of dismissal. Doc. 2. To date, Petitioner has failed to comply with the August 13 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.

Further, it is ORDERED that by September 23, 2024, 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. This Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable. Failure to file written objections to the proposed 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 upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. 11th Cir. R. 3–1. See Resol. Tr. Corp. v.

Hallmark Builders, Inc.,

, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson,

(11th Cir. 1989). Done, this 9th day of September 2024.

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