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

TYRONE MOSES FIELDS, JR., Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:24cv605/LAC/ZCB

JEFFREY A BROWN, et al., Defendants. / REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff is an inmate of the Florida Department of Corrections. He is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under

. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s amended complaint. (Doc. 27). Under this Court’s local rules, the Court will not generally consider a prisoner complaint that is not filed on the proper form. N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.7(A) (“The Court need not—and ordinarily will not—consider a petition, motion, or complaint that is not filed on the proper form.”). Plaintiff was previously informed that if he wants the Court to consider his allegations and claims, then he needed to present them in an

amended complaint filed on the Court-approved form. (Doc. 10 at 5-6). Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in a recommendation of dismissal of his case. (Id. at 19); see

also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (authorizing dismissal if a “party fails to comply with an applicable rule or a court order”). The Court further provided Plaintiff a copy of the proper complaint form. (Doc. 10 at 6, 19).

All he had to do was fill it out and send it in. Nevertheless, Plaintiff chose not to file his amended complaint on the proper form. See (Doc. 27). He has provided no reason why he failed to comply with the local rules and

this Court’s previous order.1 This Court has inherent authority to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice as a sanction for his failure to comply with the local

rules and this Court’s order. See McNair v. Johnson, __ F.4th __, No. 24- 10153,

(11th Cir. July 14, 2025) (“Dismissal without prejudice was an appropriate exercise of the district court’s inherent

authority to manage its docket and enforce the local rules.”); see also Duong Thanh Ho v. Costello,

, 913-15 (11th Cir. 2018) (affirming dismissal where pro se litigant failed to file an amended

1 Plaintiff failed to comply with several aspects of the Court’s order, including dropping his monetary damages claims against Defendants in their official capacities, complying with Rule 20, and pleading sufficient facts to state a First Amendment retaliation claim. (Doc. 10). complaint on the court-approved form as ordered by the court).

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that: 1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 27) be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with the Local Rules

for the Northern District of Florida and an order of the Court. 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. At Pensacola, Florida, this 15th day of July 2025.

/s/ Zachary C. Bolitho Zachary C. Bolitho United States Magistrate Judge

Notice to the Parties 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 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. Rule 3-1;

.