GRISALES-BASTO

v.

KNIGHT

The pro se Plaintiff initiated this case by submitting a handwritten civil rights complaint, ECF No.

1. Plaintiff did not, however, pay the filing fee nor file a motion for in forma pauperis status. An Order was entered on February 26, 2025, advising Plaintiff that she must do one or the other to proceed with this case, and setting a deadline of March 27, 2025. ECF No.

3. As of this date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee nor has she filed an in forma pauperis motion. Plaintiff was warned that if ahe failed to comply, a recommendation would be entered to dismiss this case. Id. It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this litigation because nothing further has been received.

"A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own docket, may dismiss a case sua sponte” when a Plaintiff "fails to prosecute or" otherwise comply with a court order. See Ciosek v. Ashley, No. 3:13cv147-RV-CJK, 2015 WL 2137521, at *2 (N.D. Fla. May 7, 2015). The Court has inherent power “to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution” as courts must necessarily have authority “to manage their own affairs . . ..” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 1389, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1962) (quoted in Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F. 3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)); see also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1.

Furthermore, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has noted that “[w]hile dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F. 2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). It is within this Court's discretion and “inherent authority” to dismiss a case for failing to comply with a court Order. Smith v. Bruster, 424 F. App'x 912, 915 (11th Cir. 2011). Here, Plaintiff was forewarned and did not respond to a Court Order. Because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case, dismissal is appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court Order. IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on April 17, 2025. S/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick

MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the Court's internal use only and does not control. If a party fails to object to the Magistrate Judge's findings or recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court's order based on the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir.

Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.