NELLOMS v. WARDEN FCI TALLAHASSEE

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
SHEKETHA ANN NELLOMS,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 4:25cv345/AW/MAL
WARDEN FCI TALLAHASSEE,
Respondent.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner initiated this case by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 in August of 2025. ECF No. 2. There were deficiencies in both her
original petition and her amended petition, so on December 4, 2025, she was directed
to file a second amended petition. ECF No. 11. She was given until January 5, 2026,
to file her second amended petition and two service copies, and she was warned that
a failure to timely comply could result in a recommendation that this case be
dismissed. Petitioner did not respond.
On January 26, 2026, the Court issued an order directing Petitioner to show
cause, in writing, by February 9, 2026, why this case should not be dismissed due to
her failure to comply with the Court’s order to file a second amended petition and
service copies. ECF No. 12. She was again warned that failure to timely comply with
Case 4:25-cv-00345-AW-MAL Document 13 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
the Court’s order would result in a recommendation of dismissal of this case.
Notwithstanding this admonition, Petitioner still has not responded.
A trial court has inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to
prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1962). Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to obey a
court order, typically upon motion of the defendant. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d
835, 838 (11th Cir. 1989) (citing cases). Rule 41.1 of the Local Rules of the Northern
District of Florida also authorizes the court to impose sanctions, up to and including
dismissal, for failure to comply with a rule or court order. Thus, because Petitioner
has failed to comply with Court orders necessary for the continuation of this case,
the amended petition should be dismissed without prejudice.
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:
1. Petitioner’s amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No. 5, be
DISMISSED without prejudice for her failure to comply with an order of the Court.
2. The clerk be directed to close the case file.
DONE on March 3, 2026.
s/ Midori A. Lowry
Midori A. Lowry
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-00345-AW-MAL Document 13 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The case was referred to a magistrate judge for the issuance of all preliminary
orders and any recommendations to the district court regarding dispositive matters.
See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); 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.
Case 4:25-cv-00345-AW-MAL Document 13 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 3