BURNS
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
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 due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders.
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint and amended complaints. After screening, the court found the pleadings faile…
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 Screening Of Complaints cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced this action by filing a complaint. (Doc. 1). He later filed two amended complaints. (Docs. 10, 11). The Court performed its screening duty under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and determined that these pleadings failed to state a plausible claim for relief. (See Doc. 14). Accordingly, on March 21, 2025, Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint that stated a claim within fourteen days. (Id. at 16).
Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the deadline. Therefore, on April 7, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, within fourteen days, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a Court order. (Doc. 15). The Court notified Plaintiff that his failure to show cause would result in a recommendation of dismissal 1
of this case. (Id. at 1). 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. 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, 914-15 (11th Cir. 2018) (affirming dismissal where pro se plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint as directed); Brett v. Biden, No. 1:24-CV-205-MW-MAF, 2025 WL 350874, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 2, 2025) (dismissing for failure to comply with order to file amended complaint), adopted, 2025 WL 350383 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2025).
At Pensacola, Florida, this 22nd day of April 2025.
/s 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. 2
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. 3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burns v. Dep't of Just., 2025 WL 350383 (N.D. Fla. 2025)…l where *pro se* plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint as directed); *Brett v. Biden*, No. 1:24-CV-205-MW-MAF, 2025 WL 350874, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 2, 2025) (dismissing for failure to comply with order to file amended complaint), *adopted*, 2025 WL 350383 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2025). At Pensacola, Florida, this 22nd day of April 2025. /s/ Zachary C. Bolitho Zachary C. Bolitho United States Magistrate Judge Notice to the Parties Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed…
Authorities Cited
- Burns v. Dep't of Just., 2025 WL 350383 (N.D. Fla. 2025)