UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION

NOAH DEVON STIRN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:25cv197-LC-HTC

LIEUTENANT CASTRO, et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On February 26, 2025, the Court deferred ruling on Plaintiff Noah Stirn’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered him to, within twenty-one days, either: (1) pay the $405 filing fee; or (2) submit a financial certificate signed by an authorized jail official and a printout of the transactions in his inmate trust account for the six months preceding the filing of the complaint. Doc. 4. The Court warned Stirn that his failure to comply with the February 26 Order could result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. After Stirn failed to comply within the allotted time, the Court ordered him on March 27, 2025, to show cause within fourteen days why this case should not be dismissed due to his failure to comply with the February 26 Order. Doc. 6. To date, Stirn has not responded to the March 27 Order or complied with the February 26 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 Stirn’s failure to comply with Court orders.

2. That all pending motions (Docs. 2 & 5) be terminated as MOOT. 3. That the clerk close the file. At Pensacola, Florida, this 17th day of April, 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.