UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION

MATTHEW A. TOBIN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:25cv69-TKW-HTC

RICKY DIXON,

Defendant. _____________________/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On February 5, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff Matthew A. Tobin to, within twenty-one days, file an amended complaint on the Northern District of Florida’s complaint form and either pay the $405 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 3. The Court warned Tobin that his failure to comply with the February 5 Order could result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. After Tobin failed to comply with the February 5 Order within the allotted time, the Court ordered him on March 6, 2025, to show cause within fourteen days why this case should not be dismissed. Doc. 4. To date, Tobin has not responded to the March 6 Order or complied with the February 5 Order. Based on the foregoing, dismissal of this case is appropriate. See Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t,

(11th Cir. 2006) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)] for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”) (citations omitted); Moon v. Newsome,

(11th Cir. 1989) (“[D]ismissal upon disregard

of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.”) (citations omitted). Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:

1. That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to Tobin’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court orders. 2. That the clerk close the file. At Pensacola, Florida, this 27th day of March, 2025.

/s/ Hope Thai Cannon

HOPE THAI CANNON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES 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 its objections upon 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 the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1.