JONES

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this case on August 3, 2021. Although Plaintiff submitted a complaint raising claims under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, he did not pay the filing fee or file an in forma pauperis motion. Plaintiff was advised to do one or the other no later than September 7, 2021. ECF No. 3.

In late August, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 4. He also submitted the required notice of other prior, similar actions in early September. ECF No. 5. On September 7, 2021, Plaintiff’s motion was denied without prejudice and, as a courtesy, Plaintiff was given additional time in which to comply with the prior Order, ECF No. 3. ECF No. 6. He was given until September 17, 2021, to do so and,

moreover, advised that if he no longer desired to proceed with this case and/or conceded that it was duplicative,¹ Plaintiff was directed to file a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) by the same deadline. Id. As of this date, nothing further has been received from Plaintiff. Because Plaintiff was warned that a recommendation would be made to dismiss this case if he did not comply by the deadline provided, it appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this litigation. “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 Supreme Court has held that “[t]he authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily

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 September 28, 2021.

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). A copy of the objections shall be served upon all other parties. A party may respond to another party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. 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.