IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

CALVIN JAMES

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:20-cv-169

v.

CHATHAM COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al.,

Defendants.

O RDE R After a careful de novo review of the entire record, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's September 4, 2020, Report and Recommendation in which the Magistrate Judge recommended imposing filing restrictions, (doc. 4), and which directed plaintiff to return certain forms. Plaintiff has filed objections. (Doc. 6.) Plaintiff argues in those objections that the Court cannot impose filing restrictions on him because he does not have “three strikes” under Prison Litigation Reform Act,

Stat. 1321 (PLRA). (Id. at 4.) However, Plaintiff misapprehends the rationale of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Even in the absence of PLRA’s filing restrictions the Court has an independent ability to protect itself from “conduct which impairs [its] ability to carry out Article III functions.” Procup v. Strickland,

(11th Cir. 1986) (en banc). Here, Plaintiff has filed well over twenty cases and in many of them has raised untimely or meritless claims, and in others has refused to comply with the Court’s orders to return his forms or pay fees. As the Magistrate Judge noted, this abusive conduct is the exact type of behavior which warrants the imposition of filing restrictions. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, (doc. 4), as its opinion and imposes those restrictions adopted in outlined in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff’ s tactics extend even to this case. Specifically, although plaintiff objected to the imposition of filing restrictions, plaintiff also failed to comply with the Court’s order to return his PLRA forms. The Court forewarned Plaintiff in its September 18, 2020 Order that Plaintiffs failure to return these forms within fourteen days shall result in the dismissal of his case. (Id. at p.5.) The deadline for Plaintiff to provide those forms passed long ago, and Plaintiff has entirely failed to comply with the Court’s directive or to seek additional time to do so. This Court has the authority to prune cases from its docket where parties fail to prosecute and fail to comply with its Orders. See L.R. 41(b); see Link vy. Wabash R.R. Co.,

(1962) (courts have the inherent authority to dismiss claims for lack of prosecution); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op,

, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Jones v. Graham,

(11th Cir. 1983); Floyd v. United States, CV491-277 (S.D. Ga. June 10, 1992). Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and failure to follow the Court’s Order. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal and to CLOSE this case. SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of December, 2020. f S fe Lye R. STAN BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA