FOR THE SOAUUTHGEURSNTA D DISITVRISICIOTN O F GEORGIA CHARLENE A. HAYES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV 124-163 ) FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION; ) SHANON J. BRISTER; CHRISTOPHER ) AHEAM; TAYLOR JONES; CYNTHIA J. ) COLLINS; and JOANN McGORRY, ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________________________________

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION _________________________________________________________ Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”). On September 20, 2024, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint within fourteen days to cure certain pleading deficiencies and provided instructions for amending. (See doc. no. 4.) The Court cautioned Plaintiff that failing to submit a timely amended complaint would result in a presumption by the Court she desires to have this case voluntarily dismissed and would result in a recommendation for dismissal of this action. (Id. at 7.) The time to respond has passed, but Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s September 20th Order. A district court has authority to manage its docket to expeditiously resolve cases, and this authority includes the power to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order. Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2009) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)); see also Eades v. Ala. Dep’t of Human Res.,

(11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (“District courts possess the ability to dismiss a case . . . for want of prosecution based on two possible dockets.””). Moreover, the Local Rules of the Southern District of Georgia dictate that an “assigned Judge may, after notice to counsel of record, sua sponte .. . dismiss any action for want of prosecution, with or without prejudice . . . [for] [w]illful disobedience or neglect of any order of the Court; or [a]ny other failure to prosecute a civil action with reasonable promptness.” Loc. R. 41.1 (b) & (c). Finally, dismissal without prejudice is generally appropriate pursuant to Rule 41(b) where a plaintiff has failed to comply with a court order, “especially where the litigant has been forewarned.” Owens v. Pinellas Cnty. Sheriff's Dep’t,

(11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (citing Moon v. Newsome,

(11th Cir. 1989)). Here, Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint, or even to provide an explanation for her failure to comply with the Court’s prior order, amounts not only to a failure to prosecute, but also an abandonment of her case. This is precisely the type of neglect contemplated by the Local Rules. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that failing to submit the required amended pleading would result in a recommendation for dismissal. Furthermore, because Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, the Court finds that the imposition of monetary sanctions is not a feasible sanction. In sum, the time to respond has passed, and Plaintiff has not submitted an amended complaint as required by the Court’s prior order. Therefore, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS this case be DISMISSED without prejudice and CLOSED. SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of October, 2024, at Augusta, Georgia.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA