LA ROSA

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

The undersigned recommends that the District Court dismiss this civil action because Plaintiff has failed to comply with two court orders and failed to prosecute this action.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 13, 2024, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this civil action against Defendant in a Florida court and alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101; the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1) and (a)(2); and the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla. Stat. § 760.01 et seq. Doc. 1 at 2; Doc. 1-1 at 2, 5-8. On June 17, 2024, Defendant removed this action from the Florida court to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Doc. 1. On June 24, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint.

On July 30, 2024, United States District Judge Marcia Morales Howard ordered Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss. Doc. 10. Judge Howard imposed a compliance deadline of August 16, 2024, and warned Plaintiff that “failure to respond to a Court order may result in dismissal of this action without further notice.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff did not comply with that order.

Because venue was not proper in the Middle District of Florida, on August 27, 2024, Judge Howard transferred this civil action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Doc. 13. On September 16, 2024, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss. Doc. 16. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of October 7, 2024 and warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the order likely would result in dismissal of this civil action. Id. at 6. As of the date of this report and recommendation, Plaintiff has not complied with that order.

II. DISCUSSION

"Federal courts possess an inherent power to dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with a court order." Foudy v. Indian River Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 845 F. 3d 1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted); N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (authorizing the court to dismiss an action, or any claim within it, "[i]f a party fails to comply with an applicable rule or a court order"). A district court also may dismiss a civil action sua sponte for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962). Plaintiff has failed to comply with two court orders and has failed to prosecute this action. Plaintiff has offered no excuse for his failures and, consequently, has not shown good cause. Accordingly, dismissal of this civil action is appropriate.

III. CONCLUSION

Because Plaintiff failed to comply with court orders and failed to prosecute this action the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the District Court:

1. DISMISS this action without prejudice. 2. DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 29th day of October, 2024.

Is/ Michael J. Frank Michael J. Frank United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

The District Court referred this case to the undersigned to address preliminary matters and to make recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 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 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. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.