LEE
v.
GAINEY
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 regarding payment of the filing fee or filing an in forma pauperis motion.
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint and was ordered to pay the filing fee or file an in forma pauperis motion. The plaint…
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 Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Ifp) cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). On January 31, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either pay the $405.00 filing fee or file a properly completed in forma pauperis (IFP) motion within thirty days. (Doc. 6). The Court directed the Clerk of Court to send Plaintiff the IFP forms and notified Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Court's order would result in a recommendation of dismissal. (Id.). [fn 1]
Plaintiff did not file an IFP motion or pay the filing fee within the time allowed. Therefore, on March 17, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, within fourteen days, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order. (Doc. 8). The Court again notified Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Court's order would result in a recommendation of dismissal. (Id.). [fn 2] The deadline for compliance with the show cause order has passed, and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, filed an IFP motion, or otherwise responded. Dismissal is, therefore, warranted. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (authorizing dismissal when "a party fails to comply with an applicable rule or court order"); see also Frith v. Curry, 812 F. App'x 933, 935 (11th Cir. 2020) (affirming dismissal where the plaintiff failed to pay the initial partial filing fee and failed to respond to a magistrate judge's order to show cause as to why the filing fee had not been paid).
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the Court.
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 the proposed findings and recommendations set forth above must be filed within fourteen days of the date of this 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]: The Court sent the order to Plaintiff at his record address, the Alachua County Jail. On March 3, 2025, the jail returned the order to the Court with the notation “unable to forward." (See Doc. 7). The Clerk of Court located Plaintiff on the Florida Department of Corrections' inmate locator and forwarded the order and IFP forms to the address listed on that website. (See id.).
[fn 2]: The Court sent the show cause order and a notice of change of address form to Plaintiffs record address at the jail and the address listed on the FDOC's inmate locator. (See Docs. 7, 9).