WILLIAMS v. LECKINGER et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
ANTHONY VERON WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 4:25-cv-414-MCR-MAF
TROOPER LECKINGER, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, a pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed a civil rights complaint against several officers with the Florida Highway
Patrol. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s complaint did not comply with the Local Rules
or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and he was given the opportunity to
file an amended complaint correcting the issues. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff’s
amended complaint remained deficient and he was given one more chance
to amend. ECF No. 7. His deadline for doing so was January 15, 2026. Id.
The deadline passed five weeks ago and nothing has been received from
Plaintiff. Dismissal is warranted.
The Court previously explained to Plaintiff that his facts were vague,
failed to state a claim, and failed to connect specific Defendants to the
actions alleged. See ECF No. 7 at 2-4. Plaintiff was ordered to file a second
amended complaint or, if he did not wish to continue with the case, a notice
Case 4:25-cv-00414-MCR-MAF Document 10 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
4:25-cv-414-MCR-MAF
of voluntary dismissal by the January 15, 2026 deadline. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiff
was warned that failure to comply with the Court’s Order would result in a
recommendation of dismissal. Id. at 7.
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. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 838 (11th
Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989). Furthermore, the Eleventh
Circuit has noted that “[w]hile dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, dismissal
upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been
forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.” Id. It is within this Court’s
discretion and “inherent authority” to dismiss a case for failing to comply with
a court order. Smith v. Bruster, 424 F. App’x 912, 915 (11th Cir. 2011).
Here, Plaintiff was given two opportunities to file a sufficient amended
complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. He was warned that a
recommendation of dismissal would be entered if he did not comply. As of
this date, Plaintiff has failed to file anything more. Because Plaintiff has failed
to prosecute this case and failed to comply with a court order, dismissal is
appropriate.
For the reasons stated above, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that
Case 4:25-cv-00414-MCR-MAF Document 10 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
4:25-cv-414-MCR-MAF
this case be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with
a court order.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida on February 24, 2026.
s/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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(b)(1)(C).
Case 4:25-cv-00414-MCR-MAF Document 10 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 3