OMAR FRANKLIN BARNES

v.

S. DUVAL, ET AL.

Because Plaintiff failed to comply with two court orders and failed to prosecute this action, the District Court should dismiss this action without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

On September 10, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to file a properly completed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 12. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of October 9, 2025, and warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the order likely would result in dismissal of this action. Plaintiff did not comply with that order.

On October 22, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to explain and show cause for his failure to comply with the undersigned's order of September 10, 2025. Doc. 13. The undersigned imposed a deadline of November 4, 2025, to comply and again warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the order likely would result in dismissal of this action. As of the date of this report and recommendation, Plaintiff has not complied with that order.

DISCUSSION

"Federal courts possess an inherent power to dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with a court order." Foudy v. Indian River Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 845 F. 3d 1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted); N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (authorizing the court to dismiss an action, or any claim within it, "[i]f a party fails to comply with an applicable rule or a court order"). A district court also may dismiss a civil action sua sponte for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962). Plaintiff has failed to comply with two court orders. Plaintiff has offered no excuse for his failures and, consequently, has not shown good cause. Accordingly, dismissal of this civil action is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Because Plaintiff failed to comply with court orders and failed to prosecute this action the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the District Court:

1. DISMISS this action without prejudice.

2. DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 17th day of November, 2025.

Is/ Michael J. Frank Michael J. Frank United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

The District Court referred this case to a magistrate judge to address preliminary matters and to make recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 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 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. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.