Wilson v. Baldwin County Jail et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DANIEL M. WILSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) CIV. A. NO. 24-0283-JB-MU
)
BALDWIN COUNTY JAIL, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Daniel M. Wilson, an inmate at the Baldwin County Jail, proceeding
without an attorney (pro se) and without prepayment of fees (in forma pauperis), filed a
complaint and amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docs. 1, 9, 10, 13).
Because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute his action, the undersigned RECOMMENDS
that Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b).
I. Background
Plaintiff initially filed his complaint in this action in August of 2024. (Doc. 1).
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (which consisted of four separate
filings). (See Docs. 9-11, 13). After reviewing the amended complaint, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court found it was due to be dismissed. Rather than
dismissing the amended complaint, however, the Court informed Plaintiff of the
deficiencies, instructed Plaintiff on the legal standards for asserting the alleged claims,
and provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to amend his complaint to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted. Plaintiff was ordered to file a second amended complaint
Case 1:24-cv-00283-JB-MU Doc# 18 Filed 01/29/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID#
<pageID>

2
by December 30, 2024. (Doc. 16). Plaintiff was cautioned in the Court’s order that
failure to comply with the order within the prescribed deadline or failure to advise the
Court of a change in address would result in the dismissal of the action for failure to
prosecute and to comply with the Court’s order. (Id. at 9). A copy of the order was
mailed to Plaintiff, but the order was returned by the U.S. Postal Service, stamped as
“RETURN TO SENDER Not at this Address.” (Doc. 9).
To date, Plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint as ordered, nor has
he communicated with the Court in any manner. The Court confirmed by an
independent internet search that Plaintiff was released from the Baldwin County Jail on
October 28, 2024 (see http://bcsonline.co.baldwin.al.us/smartweb/jail.aspx) (last visited
January 27, 2025). Plaintiff did not inform the Court of his release nor has he provided a
new address. Consequently, the Court is unable to locate Plaintiff.
II. Legal Analysis
A federal district court is authorized to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to
prosecute under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and its inherent power to
manage its docket. Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th
Cir. 2005); see also S.D. Ala. CivLR 41(c) (“Whenever it appears that the Plaintiff is not
diligently prosecuting the action, the Court upon notice may dismiss the action for failure
to prosecute, in accordance with applicable law.”). In the present action, the deadline for
compliance with the Court’s order has passed, and Plaintiff has failed to file a second
amended complaint curing the deficiencies of his amended complaint. Plaintiff has also
failed to update the Court as to his release from the Baldwin County Jail or provide a
new address or contact information. Accordingly, the Court has no means to
Case 1:24-cv-00283-JB-MU Doc# 18 Filed 01/29/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID#
<pageID>

3
communicate with Plaintiff.
Upon consideration of these facts and of the alternatives available to the Court,
the undersigned RECOMMENDS this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for
failure to prosecute, under both Rule 41(b) and the Court’s inherent authority, as no
other lesser sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R. R., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962)
(interpreting Rule 41(b) not to restrict the court’s inherent authority to dismiss sua
sponte an action for lack of prosecution); World Thrust Films, Inc. v. International Family
Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454, 1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995); Mingo v. Sugar Cane
Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533,
1535 (11th Cir. 1983); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983).
III. Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing analysis, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that
Plaintiff’s action be DISMISSED without prejudice; and that final judgment be entered
accordingly under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS
A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the
manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in it
must, within 14 days of the date of service of this document, file specific written
objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);
S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(c). The parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1,
“[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained
in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on
Case 1:24-cv-00283-JB-MU Doc# 18 Filed 01/29/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID#
<pageID>

4
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period
for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a
proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in
the interests of justice.” To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or
recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and
specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation where the
disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or
refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific.
DONE this the 29th day of January 2025.
/s/ P. BRADLEY MURRAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-00283-JB-MU Doc# 18 Filed 01/29/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID#
<pageID>