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

KNIGHT KEYANDRE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 1:24-cv-486-MHT-SMD ) (WO) HOUSTON COUNTY JAIL, ) ) Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff initiated this action pursuant to

while incarcerated at the Houston County Jail in Dothan, Alabama. See Docs. 1 & 2. By Order entered on August 14, 2024, Plaintiff was informed that he must submit either the $405.00 in required fees or a properly completed application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 4. And Plaintiff was “cautioned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in a recommendation that the case be dismissed in its entirety.”

(bold and underlining removed). Despite the court’s instructions and admonition, Plaintiff took no action by the imposed deadline of August 28, 2024. The Magistrate Judge finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply or otherwise respond constitutes a clear record of delay or willful contempt; and the Magistrate Judge further finds that any lesser sanction than dismissal would not be appropriate under the circumstances, i.e., where Plaintiff has failed to take action despite the court’s warning about a potential dismissal. See, e.g., Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

, 629–31 (1962) (acknowledging that the authority of courts to impose sanctions for failure to prosecute or obey an order is longstanding and empowers courts “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases”); Mingo v.

Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op of Fla.,

, 102 (11th Cir. 1989) (stating that “[t]he district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket” and that “sanctions imposed [upon dilatory litigants] can range from a simple reprimand to an order dismissing the action with or without prejudice”); Moon v. Newsome,

(11th Cir. 1989) (explaining that dismissal for failure to obey an order generally is not an abuse of discretion where the litigant has been forewarned).

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. Further, it is ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to this Recommendation on or before September 25, 2024. A party 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. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives 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. Nettles v. Wainwright,

(5th Cir. 1982); 11TH CIR. R. 3- 1. See Stein v. Lanning Securities, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard,

(11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). DONE this 11th day of September, 2024.

/s/ Stephen M. Doyle STEPHEN M. DOYLE CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE