MOORE v. ARRINDEL et al

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
JOE MOORE,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 1:26cv93-MW-MAF
TRAVIS ARRINDEL,
HANNAH COHEN, and
KEVIN MCCLANAHAN,
and MADALINA DANESCU,
Defendants.
___________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this case by submitting a
complaint, ECF No. 1, and an in forma pauperis motion, ECF No. 2. The in
forma pauperis motion was sufficient and was granted, but the complaint
was not. An Order was entered, ECF No. 4, requiring Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint in compliance with the Local Rules of this Court and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Plaintiff was provided additional
guidance about the complaint’s deficiencies and directed to file an
Case 1:26-cv-00093-MW-MAF Document 5 Filed 05/28/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
amended complaint on the Court’s form by May 25, 2026. 1 Id. 	Plaintiff was
warned that if he failed to comply, a recommendation would be entered to
dismiss this case. 	Id.
As of this day, nothing further has been received from Plaintiff. He
did not comply, nor did he file a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this case.
“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); see
also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has
noted that “[w]hile dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon
disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned,
generally is not an abuse of discretion.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835,
837 (11th Cir. 1989). It is within this Court’s discretion and “inherent
authority” to dismiss a case for failing to comply with a court Order. Smith
v. Bruster, 424 F. App’x 912, 915 (11th Cir. 2011). Here Plaintiff was
1 Because Plaintiff is not incarcerated, he does not have the benefit of the “prison
mailbox rule” and additional time after a court imposed deadline.
Case No. 1:26cv93-MW-MAF
Case 1:26-cv-00093-MW-MAF Document 5 Filed 05/28/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
forewarned and did not respond to a Court Order. Because Plaintiff has
failed to prosecute this case, dismissal is appropriate.
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 May 28, 2026.
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.
Case No. 1:26cv93-MW-MAF
Case 1:26-cv-00093-MW-MAF Document 5 Filed 05/28/26 Page 3 of 3