COOKS v. ABRAHAM et al

Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
TAREYAN COOKS,
Inmate # 182317,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 4:25cv536-MW-MAF
B. ABRAHAM, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The pro se Plaintiff initiated this case while detained at the Leon
County Detention Facility. Plaintiff submitted a handwritten civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, ECF No. 1, but did not pay the Court’s
$405.00 filing fee or file an in forma pauperis motion. An Order was
entered directing Plaintiff to do one or the other, and explaining the
requirements for requesting in forma pauperis status. ECF No. 4.
Plaintiff subsequently filed a handwritten in forma pauperis motion,
ECF No. 5, but still did not file a proper in forma pauperis motion. Instead,
Plaintiff said that he filed a prior in forma pauperis motion in early October
Case 4:25-cv-00536-MW-MAF Document 7 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
2025 in another case (presumably in another court), and sent “the only
bank account statement he had in his possession.” 	Id. at 1. Plaintiff’s
request to have this Court obtain copy of that bank account statement was
denied. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was informed that it was his obligation to
properly support an in forma pauperis motion; it is not the Court’s
responsibility to obtain that support for Plaintiff. 	Id. 	Thus, Plaintiff was
provided additional time in which to obtain the necessary documentation to
support an in forma pauperis motion in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(2). Plaintiff was given until February 5, 2026, to do so, and
warned that this case would be dismissed if he did not comply. 	Id.
As of this date, nothing further has been received. It appears that
Plaintiff has abandoned this litigation.
“A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own
docket, may dismiss a case sua sponte” when a Plaintiff “fails to prosecute
or” otherwise comply with a court order. 	See Ciosek v. Ashley, No.
3:13cv147-RV-CJK, 2015 WL 2137521, at *2 (N.D. Fla. May 7, 2015). The
Court has inherent power “to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution” as
courts must necessarily have authority “to manage their own affairs . . . . ”
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 1389, 8 L. Ed.
Case No. 4:25cv536-MW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00536-MW-MAF Document 7 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
2d 734 (1962) (quoted in Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d
1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)); see also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1. Furthermore,
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals 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.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). 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 forewarned and did not respond to
two Court Orders. ECF Nos. 4, 6. Because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute
this case, dismissal is now appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED for
failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court Order.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on February 20, 2026.
S/ 	Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case No. 4:25cv536-MW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00536-MW-MAF Document 7 Filed 02/20/26 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). 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. 4:25cv536-MW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00536-MW-MAF Document 7 Filed 02/20/26 Page 4 of 4