UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ROBERT LEE WRIGHT, III,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:24-cv-142-MW/MJF

SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FACILITY SUPPORT, et al.,

Defendants. / REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Because Plaintiff failed to comply with three court orders, failed to pay the filing fee, and failed to prosecute this action, the District Court should dismiss this action without prejudice. I. BACKGROUND On March 25, 2024, Plaintiff commenced this civil action. Doc. 1. He also submitted a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 2. On March 26, 2024, the undersigned denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis because Plaintiff did not include a certified printout of the transactions of his inmate trust account. Doc. 4. The undersigned ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or properly move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. The

undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of April 25, 2024 and warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply timely likely would result in dismissal of this action.

On April 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “First Amended Motion to Leave In Forma Pauperis/Pro se.” Doc. 5 at 1 (error in original). Plaintiff’s motion was deficient because he: (1) did not use the court-approved forms

for his motion; (2) did not submit a financial affidavit; and (3) did not submit a certified copy of the transactions in his inmate trust account. For these reasons, on April 5, 2024, the undersigned denied Plaintiff’s

motion without prejudice. Doc. 6 at 2. The undersigned ordered Plaintiff to pay $405 or submit a fully completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. at 4. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of

April 25, 2024. Id. The undersigned warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with that order likely would result in dismissal of this action. Plaintiff did not comply with that order.

On May 9, 2024, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to explain and show cause for his failure to comply with the undersigned’s order of April 5, 2024. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of May 23, 2024 and warned Plaintiff for a third time that the failure to comply timely

with the court’s orders would likely result in dismissal of this action. On May 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “In Writ of Appeal,” in which Plaintiff explained that he did not know how to proceed

in this action because he already had paid an initial partial filing fee. Doc. 13 at 1 (citing Wright v. Fitzpatrick, No. 4:24-cv-132-WS-MJF (N.D. Fla.)).

On June 3, 2024, the undersigned advised Plaintiff that “Plaintiff must pay the fee or file a properly completed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in each case he has filed. The mere fact that the

district court may have granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status in a prior case, does not excuse him from satisfying his obligation in this case.” Doc. 14 at 1–2. The undersigned ordered Plaintiff to pay $405 or move for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. Id. at 2–3. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of June 24, 2024 and warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with that order likely would result in

dismissal. Id. at 3. Plaintiff did not comply with that order. On July 26, 2024, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to explain and show cause for his failure to comply with the undersigned’s order of June 3, 2024. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of August 9,

2024 and warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with that order likely would result in dismissal. On or about July 30, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a letter in response

to the undersigned’s order to show cause. Doc. 16. Plaintiff asserts merely that he has been “sending things correctly in the mail.” Id. at 1. II. DISCUSSION

“Federal courts possess an inherent power to dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with a court order.” Foudy v. Indian River Cnty. Sheriff’s Off.,

(11th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted);

N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1. A district court also may dismiss a civil action sua sponte for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co.,

(1962). Furthermore, a district court may

dismiss a civil action where a plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee. Wilson v. Sargent,

, 1320–21 (11th Cir. 2002). Here, Plaintiff has not complied with three court orders, has not diligently prosecuted this

action, and has not paid the filing fee. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not shown good cause for these failures. At best, Plaintiff vaguely states that he has been “sending things” in the mail, but Plaintiff does not specify what “things” Plaintiff purports to be sending. Furthermore, Plaintiff

does not identify the dates that he submitted the “things” for mailing. Plaintiff’s conclusory statement that he sent “things” to the court is insufficient to show Plaintiff has been diligent in prosecuting this action

and complying with court orders. Accordingly, dismissal of this civil action is appropriate. III. CONCLUSION

Because Plaintiff failed to comply with court orders, has failed to prosecute this action, and has failed to pay the filing fee, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the District Court:

1. DISMISS this action without prejudice. 2. DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file. At Pensacola, Florida, this 6th day of August, 2024.

/s/ Michael J. Frank Michael J. Frank United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES The District Court referred this case to the undersigned to address preliminary matters and to make recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also

(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of the report and recommendation. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only and does not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections on all other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1;

.