MCKENZIE

v.

JETTERS

The undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to comply with three court orders, failed to prosecute this action, and failed to pay the filing fee.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff commenced this civil action by filing a complaint. Doc. 1. On August 5, 2024, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*. See Doc. 3. On the same date, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. See Doc. 4. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of September 4, 2024, and warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with these orders likely would result in dismissal of this action. Plaintiff did not comply with the orders.

On September 19, 2024, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to explain and show cause for her failure to comply with the undersigned's orders of August 5, 2024. Doc. 5. The deadline to respond to the show-cause order was October 4, 2024. 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). Furthermore, a district court may dismiss a civil action when a plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee. *Wilson v. Sargent*, 313 F. 3d 1315, 1320–21 (11th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff has failed to comply with three court orders, has failed to prosecute this action, and has failed to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff has offered no excuse for her failures and, consequently, has not shown good cause. Accordingly, dismissal of this civil action is appropriate.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, 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 24th day of October, 2024.

/s/ 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.