CLARK

v.

BRISTOW

Plaintiff Joseph Clark, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an amended civil complaint against Defendant Bradley A. Bristow, asserting claims of libel per-se and slander per-se. Doc. 6. Although the United States Marshals Service served Bristow with the summons and complaint on January 7, 2025 (Doc. 16), there has been no other activity in this case since that date. Thus, on March 3, 2025, the Court ordered Clark to show cause within fourteen (14) days why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute. Doc. 17. The Court warned Clark that his failure to comply with the March 3 order could result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. Clark did not respond to the Court's Order.

Based on the foregoing, dismissal of this case is appropriate for two reasons. First, Clark failed to respond to the show cause order. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F. 2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) ("[D]ismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.") (citations omitted). Second, Clark has failed to prosecute this action by timely seeking a clerk's default or default judgment. See Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep't, 205 F. App'x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)] for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.") (citations omitted); Birmingham v. RoFx.net, No. 21-23472-CIV, 2022 WL 19406163, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 17, 2022) ("If the Plaintiffs fail to timely seek a Clerk's default or a default judgment, the Court may dismiss this action as to such Defendant, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute.").

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:

1. That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to Clark's failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court orders.

2. That the clerk close the file.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 27th day of March, 2025.

/s/ Hope Thai Cannon

HOPE THAI CANNON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

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 its objections upon 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 the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1.

Case No. 3:24cv477-TKW-HTC