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

LLOYD ANTHONY DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:24-cv-190-MW-MJF

FRANKLIN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, et al.,

Defendants.

/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to comply with two court orders and failed to prosecute this action. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit on April 18, 2024. Doc. 1. Plaintiff’s complaint was not accompanied by the filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.3 (“A party who files or removes a civil case must simultaneously Page 1 of 4 either pay any fee required under

or move for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis under

.”). On May 6, 2024, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to (1) file an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (2) pay the $405.00

filing fee, or (3) file a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 7. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of June 5, 2024, and warned

Plaintiff that failure to comply with the order likely would result in this case being dismissed.

. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the order dated May 6,

2024, and has not responded to the 14-day show-cause order entered on August 1, 2024. See Doc. 8.1 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);

1 A copy of the show-cause order was re-mailed to Plaintiff on August 29, 2024. See Doc. 9. Page 2 of 4 N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (authorizing the court to dismiss an action, or any

claim within it, “[i]f a party fails to comply with an applicable rule or a court order”). 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). Plaintiff has failed to comply with two court orders. Plaintiff has offered no excuse for his failures and, consequently, has not shown good cause. Accordingly, dismissal of this civil action is

appropriate. III. CONCLUSION Because Plaintiff failed to comply with court orders and failed to

prosecute this action, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that: 1. This action be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s

failure to comply with court orders. 2. The clerk of court be directed to close this case file. At Panama City, Florida, this 20th day of September, 2024.

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

Page 3 of 4 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

The District Court referred this case to the undersigned to make recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See

(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within fourteen 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. A party must serve a copy of any objections on all other parties. A party who fails to object to this 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;

.

Page 4 of 4