UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JOHNNIE CASEY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:24-cv-110-MW/MJF

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM, et al.,

Defendants. / REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to comply with two court orders, failed to prosecute this action, and failed to pay the filing fee. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff commenced this action on June 5, 2024, by filing a civil rights complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Docs. 1, 2. On June 26, 2024, the undersigned denied the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis because Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient information for the court to determine whether he was able to pay the filing fee. See Doc. 4. The undersigned ordered Plaintiff to (1) file a new 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. 4. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of July 17, 2024, and warned

Plaintiff that failure to comply with the order likely would result in dismissal of this action. Plaintiff did not comply with that order. On July 30, 2024, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to explain and

show cause for his failure to comply with the undersigned’s order of June 26, 2024. Doc. 5. The deadline to respond to the show-cause order was August 14, 2024. As of the date of this report and recommendation,

Plaintiff has not responded to that order. 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 (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). Furthermore, a district court may dismiss a

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

, 1320–21 (11th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff has failed to comply with two court orders and has failed to pay the filing fee. 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, failed to prosecute this action, and 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 20th day of September, 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;

.