EDWARDS

v.

UNITED STATES

Because Plaintiff failed to comply with two court orders and failed to prosecute this action, the District Court should dismiss this action without prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

After screening Plaintiff's third amended complaint and identifying deficiencies, on May 31, 2024, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Doc. 66. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of July 1, 2024, and warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the order likely would result in dismissal of this action.

On July 23, 2024, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to explain and show cause for Plaintiffs failure to comply with the undersigned's order

of May 31, 2024. Doc. 67. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of August 6, 2024 and again warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the order likely would result in dismissal of this action. 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 excuses for these failures, and, consequently, failed to show good for the failures. 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 26th day of August, 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 all preliminary matters and to make recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(C); 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 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 unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.