WHITEHEAD
v.
SMITH
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court recommended dismissal of the case without prejudice.
Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, failed to comply with court orders to provide service copies of his amended complaint and to show cause for his non-comp…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a pro se prisoner civil rights case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 6). On June 17, 2025, the Court directed Plaintiff to provide three copies of the Amended Complaint to facilitate service of process upon Defendants. (Doc. 7). [fn 1] The Court set a deadline of July 16, 2025 for Plaintiff to comply with the order and notified him that his failure to comply by the deadline would result in a recommendation of dismissal. (Id.).
Plaintiff did not submit any service copies by the deadline. Therefore, on August 1, 2025, the Court issued an order giving Plaintiff fourteen days to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with a Court order. (Doc. 8). The Court notified Plaintiff that his failure to show cause would result in a recommendation of dismissal of this case. (Id.). The deadline for compliance with the show cause order has passed, and Plaintiff has not responded.
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the Court and failure to provide the Court with his current mailing address. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (authorizing dismissal if a "party fails to comply with an applicable rule or a court order"); see also Duong Thanh Ho v. Costello, 757 F. App'x 912, 914 (11th Cir. 2018) (affirming dismissal where pro se litigant failed to file an amended complaint as directed by the district court).
At Pensacola, Florida, this 26th day of August 2025.
Is/ 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; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
[fn 1]: Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis (Doc. 4), so the Court must serve process on Plaintiff's behalf. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).