MCPEEK v. WALMART INC

Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
JOSEPH MCPEEK,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 5:25cv74-TKW-MAF
WALMART, INC.,
Defendant.
_________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendant filed a notice of removal, ECF No. 1, in March 2025.
Subsequently, an Order was entered, ECF No. 17, granting the
Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay this proceeding, ECF
No. 10. The stay was entered on September 30, 2025, and required the
parties to file a status update concerning the arbitration proceedings and
the necessity of continuing the stay of this case. ECF No. 17.
The first status update was due to be filed no later than January 28,
2026, and every four months thereafter. 	Id. 	The Order made clear that
because Plaintiff bore the responsibility to prosecute this action, the failure
to comply with that Order and file a status update would “be deemed to be
Case 5:25-cv-00074-TKW-MAF Document 19 Filed 03/16/26 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
an abandonment of this action.” 	Id. 	When an update was not filed by
February 2, 2026, an Order to Show Cause was entered. ECF No. 18.
That Order reiterated Plaintiff’s obligation to prosecute this case and gave
Plaintiff until February 17, 2026, “to show good cause for his failure to file
the status update.” ECF No. 18. In addition, Plaintiff was required to
“demonstrate that this case should continue and clarify the status of the
arbitration proceedings.” 	Id.
Plaintiff has now failed to respond to that Order to Show Cause.
Plaintiff has not provided any information concerning the status of the
arbitration proceedings. Because it appears Plaintiff has abandoned this
case, and because Plaintiff was warned that his failure to respond would
result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action, this case should now
be dismissed.
“A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own
docket, may dismiss a case sua sponte for any of the reasons prescribed in
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” 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
Case No. 5:25cv74-TKW-MAF
Case 5:25-cv-00074-TKW-MAF Document 19 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily
vested in courts to manage their own affairs . . . . ” Link v. Wabash R.R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1389, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (quoted
in Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir.
2005)). In addition, the local rules of this Court provide that if “a party fails
to comply with . . . a court order, the Court may strike a pleading, dismiss a
claim, enter a default on a claim, take other appropriate action, or issue an
order to show cause why any of these actions should not be taken.” N.D.
Fla. Loc. R. 41.1. Because a show cause order was already entered, this
case should now be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with
court orders. ECF Nos. 17, 18.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED for
failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on March 16, 2026.
S/ 	Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case No. 5:25cv74-TKW-MAF
Case 5:25-cv-00074-TKW-MAF Document 19 Filed 03/16/26 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
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. 5:25cv74-TKW-MAF
Case 5:25-cv-00074-TKW-MAF Document 19 Filed 03/16/26 Page 4 of 4