Pannell v. Valenius et al

Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DECOREY PANNELL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) CIV. ACT. NO. 1:25-cv-12-TFM-N
)
ZAN MICHAEL VALENIUS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On May 2, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered a report and recommendation which
recommends this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to comply with
the court’s orders. See Doc. 7. No objections were filed.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes dismissal of a complaint for failure to prosecute or failure
to comply with a court order or the federal rules. Gratton v. Great Am. Commc’ns, 178 F.3d 1373,
1374 (11th Cir. 1999). Further, such a dismissal may be done on motion of the defendant or sua
sponte as an inherent power of the court. Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333,
1337 (11th Cir. 2005). “[D]ismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has
been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.” Vil v. Perimeter Mortg. Funding Corp.,
715 F. App’x 912, 915 (quoting Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989)). “[E]ven
a non-lawyer should realize the peril to [his] case, when [he] . . . ignores numerous notices” and
fails to comply with court orders. Anthony v. Marion Cty. Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164, 1169 (5th
Cir. 1980); see also Moon, 863 F.2d at 837 (As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned,
dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.). Therefore, the Court
finds it appropriate to exercise its “inherent power” to “dismiss [Plaintiff’s claims] sua sponte for
Case 1:25-cv-00012-TFM-N Doc# 9 Filed 05/28/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID#
<pageID>

Page 2 of 2
lack of prosecution.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734
(1962); see also Betty K Agencies, Ltd., 432 F.3d at 1337 (describing the judicial power to dismiss
sua sponte for failure to comply with court orders).
Since the filing of his complaint on January 8, 2025, there has been no additional action by
the Plaintiff despite an order directing him to file an amended complaint. Additionally, all the
mail has been returned and Plaintiff failed to advise the Court of his change in address.
Accordingly, after due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant
to the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure
to prosecute and obey the Court’s orders.
A separate judgment will issue pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of May, 2025.
/s/Terry F. Moorer
TERRY F. MOORER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00012-TFM-N Doc# 9 Filed 05/28/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID#
<pageID>