Woodyard v. Bishop et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DRAPER FRANK WOODYARD, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	CIV. A. NO. 24-00374-TFM-N
)
JUDGE JODY BISHOP, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Draper Frank Woodyard, proceeding without the assistance of counsel (pro se),
filed a complaint (doc. 1) and partial amended complaint (doc. 7) seeking relief under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. This case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for appropriate action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a)(2)(R). (Doc. 2). Upon review of
this action’s proceedings, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without
prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and to comply with the Court’s order.
By order dated June 11, 2025, the Court informed Woodyard that his complaint failed to
provide adequate notice of his claims against each defendant, sought relief from defendants
immune from suit, and sought relief (release from prison) that was unavailable in a § 1983
action. (Doc. 10). For these reasons, Plaintiff was warned that his suit was due to be dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). (Id.). The Court ordered Plaintiff to replead his
claims and cure the noted deficiencies on or before July 11, 2025.
The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Court's order within the
required time would result in the dismissal of this action. (Id. at 5-6). The order and the Court's
complaint form were sent to Plaintiff and have not been returned to the Court by postal officials.
To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint as ordered. In fact, Plaintiff has not
Case 1:24-cv-00374-TFM-N Doc# 11 Filed 07/29/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>

2
communicated with the Court in any manner regarding this action (though he has repeatedly filed
documents related to his other pending lawsuits).
A “court may dismiss a claim if the plaintiff fails to prosecute it or comply with a court
order.” Equity Lifestyle Prop., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240
(11th Cir. 2009). The court's authority to dismiss an action sua sponte for lack of prosecution is
considered a fundamental power of the court. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962).
Courts are vested with the inherent authority “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the
orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Id. at 630-31. Moreover, “Rule 41(b) authorizes a
district court to dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court
order or the federal rules.” Saint Vil v. Perimeter Mortg. Funding Corp., 715 F. App'x 912, 915
(11th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accord Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V
Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005) (recognizing the two sources of a court's
authority to sua sponte dismiss an action are its inherent powers and Rule 41(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure).
Due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court's order and to prosecute this action, it
is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice, as no lesser sanction
will suffice to address Plaintiff’s willful conduct. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th
Cir. 1989) (dismissal for disregarding an order after a litigant has been forewarned is generally
not an abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989); see Frith v. Curry, 812 F. App'x
933, 934-35 (11th Cir. 2020) (affirming an action's dismissal when an inmate, who had been
warned that failure to comply would result in his action's dismissal for failure to prosecute, did
not respond to the court's order and did not pay the partial filing fee even though he filed his
signed consent form); Freeze v. Sec'y, Dep't of Children & Families, 825 F. App'x 606, 610
Case 1:24-cv-00374-TFM-N Doc# 11 Filed 07/29/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>

3
(11th Cir. 2020) (affirming the dismissal without prejudice of the complaint for failure to follow
court orders to amend his complaint).
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 fourteen
(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 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.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order 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 July, 2025.
/s/ KATHERINE P. NELSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-00374-TFM-N Doc# 11 Filed 07/29/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>