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

QUANTOVIA ROBINSON,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:24-cv-3

v.

COUNSELOR SMITH, OFFICER CARVER, COUNSELOR COX, and SGT. CRAWFORD,

Defendants.

O RDE R I issued a Report on February 21, 2024, recommending the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint because he had not complied with this Court’s Orders to return the Magistrate Judge assignment form and the requisite financial forms. Doc. 10. Two weeks later, Plaintiff submitted the Magistrate Judge Assignment Form. Doc. 11. However, he still had not submitted his financial forms, as this Court directed in its January 12, 2024 Order. Doc. 8. Because it appeared Plaintiff was trying to comply with this Court’s Orders, I provided him with an additional 14 days to return his financial forms. The Court warned Plaintiff his failure to comply with this Order in a timely manner would result in the dismissal of his Complaint. Doc. 12. This Court’s mailing was returned as undeliverable, with the notations: “Return to Sender, No Such Number, Unable to Forward.” Doc. 13 at 1. Plaintiff still has not returned the requisite financial forms, and the extended period of time to do so has elapsed. Because Plaintiff has consented to the undersigned’s plenary review of this case, I VACATE the February 21, 2024 Report and Recommendation. I issue this Order in its stead. I DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to follow this Court’s Order and failure to prosecute, DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal, and DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. DISCUSSION I. Dismissal for Failure to Follow This Court’s Order and to Prosecute

A district court may dismiss a plaintiff’s claims sua sponte pursuant to either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) or the court’s inherent authority to manage its docket. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

(1962);1 Coleman v. St. Lucie Cnty. Jail,

, 718 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA,

(11th Cir. 2005)). In particular, Rule 41(b) allows for the involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s claims where he has failed to prosecute those claims, comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or local rules, or follow a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Coleman, 433 F. App’x at 718; Sanders v. Barrett, No. 05-12660,

, at *1 (11th Cir. Oct. 17, 2005) (citing Kilgo v. Ricks,

(11th Cir. 1993)); cf. Local R. 41.1(b) (“[T]he assigned Judge may, after notice to counsel of record, sua sponte . . . dismiss any

action for want of prosecution, with or without prejudice[,] . . . [based on] willful disobedience or neglect of any order of the Court.” (emphasis omitted)). Additionally, a district court’s “power to dismiss is an inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its orders and ensure prompt disposition of lawsuits.” Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t,

(11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Jones v. Graham,

(11th Cir. 1983)). It is true dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute is a “sanction . . . to be utilized only in extreme situations” and requires a court to “(1) conclud[e] a clear record of delay or

1 In Wabash, the Court held a trial court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute “even without affording notice of its intention to do so.”

. Nonetheless, in the case at hand, the Court advised Plaintiff his failure to comply with the Court’s Orders would result in dismissal of this action. Doc. 7, 8, 12. willful contempt exists; and (2) mak[e] an implicit or explicit finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice.” Thomas v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ.,

, 625–26 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Morewitz v. West of Eng. Ship Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass’n (Lux.),

(11th Cir. 1995)); see also Taylor v. Spaziano,

(11th Cir.

2007) (citing Morewitz,

). By contrast, dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute is not an adjudication on the merits, and, therefore, courts are afforded greater discretion in dismissing claims in this manner. Taylor,

; see also Coleman, 433 F. App’x at 719; Brown, 205 F. App’x at 802–03. While the Court exercises its discretion to dismiss cases with caution, dismissal of this action without prejudice is warranted. See Coleman, 433 F. App’x at 719 (upholding dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute § 1983 complaint where plaintiff did not respond to court order to supply defendant’s current address for purpose of service); Taylor, 251 F. App’x at 620–21 (upholding dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute because plaintiffs insisted on going forward with deficient amended complaint rather than complying or seeking an

extension of time to comply with court’s order to file second amended complaint); Brown, 205 F. App’x at 802–03 (upholding dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute § 1983 claims where plaintiff failed to follow court order to file amended complaint and court had informed plaintiff non-compliance could lead to dismissal). With Plaintiff having failed to provide the Court with necessary financial documents or otherwise respond to the Court’s Order, the Court cannot move forward with this case. See

& 1915. Moreover, Plaintiff was given notice of the consequences of his failure to follow the Court’s Order, and Plaintiff has not done so. Thus, the Court DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to follow this Court’s Orders and failure to prosecute and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal. II. Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis The Court also denies Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Though Plaintiff has

not yet filed a notice of appeal, it is appropriate to address that issue in the Court’s order of dismissal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3) (noting trial court may certify appeal is not taken in good faith “before or after the notice of appeal is filed”). An appeal cannot be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies, either before or after the notice of appeal is filed, the appeal is not taken in good faith.

(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Good faith in this context must be judged by an objective standard. Busch v. County of Volusia,

(M.D. Fla. 1999). A party does not proceed in good faith when he seeks to advance a frivolous claim or argument. See Coppedge v. United States,

(1962). A claim or argument is frivolous when it appears the factual allegations are clearly baseless or the legal theories are indisputably meritless. Neitzke v.

Williams,

(1989); Carroll v. Gross,

(11th Cir. 1993). An in forma pauperis action is frivolous and not brought in good faith if it is “without arguable merit either in law or fact.” Moore v. Bargstedt,

(11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Bilal v. Driver,

(11th Cir. 2001)); see also Brown v. United States, Nos. 407CV085, 403CR001,

, at *1–2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009). Based on the above analysis of Plaintiff’s failure to follow this Court’s Orders and failure to prosecute, there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, and an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on appeal. CONCLUSION For the above-stated reasons, I DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to follow this Court’s Order and failure to prosecute, DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal, and DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. SO ORDERED, this 17th day of April, 2024.

Bora UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA