ELMORE v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
MATTHEW ROBERT ELMORE,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 4:26-cv-200-MW-MAF
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Defendant.
___________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights
complaint against the Internal Revenue Service. ECF No. 1. On April 28,
2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to correct deficiencies in his complaint or
file a notice of voluntary dismissal no later than May 28, 2026. ECF No. 4.
That Order was returned on May 14, 2026 as undeliverable. See ECF No. 6.
Plaintiff has not provided a secondary address. The deadline to file an
amended complaint expired two weeks ago and nothing has been received
from Plaintiff. Dismissal is warranted.
The Court previously alerted Plaintiff to the “many issues with Plaintiff's
complaint,” including failure to state a claim, statute of limitations, venue, and
improper Defendant. See ECF No. 4. Plaintiff sought “all” of his “tax records
since 1981” and claimed he was “being extorted and framed by” satellites,
“drones,” and something to do with “latex mask[s].” ECF No. 1 at 4-5. Plaintiff
Case 4:26-cv-00200-MW-MAF Document 7 Filed 06/11/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
4:26-cv-200-MW-MAF
was given the chance to file an amended complaint if he had a good faith
basis to do so, or if not, a notice of voluntary dismissal by the May 28, 2026
deadline. ECF No. 4 at 3. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the
Court’s Order would result in a recommendation of dismissal. Id. at 4. He
was also informed that it was his responsibility to keep the Clerk’s Office
informed of his current mailing address and if mail from the Court could not
reach him, the case may be dismissed. Id.
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.; see also See Gilbert
v. Daniels, 725 F. App’x 789, 792 (11th Cir. 2018) (affirming the district
court’s dismissal when the plaintiff failed to update the court of his address
change, which prevented him from complying with court orders).
Here, Plaintiff was given an opportunity to file a sufficient amended
complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. He was warned that a
Case 4:26-cv-00200-MW-MAF Document 7 Filed 06/11/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
4:26-cv-200-MW-MAF
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
this case be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with
a court order.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida on June 11, 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 4:26-cv-00200-MW-MAF Document 7 Filed 06/11/26 Page 3 of 3