TASCH v. BUCKALOU

Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
ANTHONY TASCH,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-241-MW-MJF
BUCKALOU,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with two court orders, failed to
pay the filing fee, and failed to prosecute this action, the District Court
should dismiss this action without prejudice.
B ACKGROUND
On October 28, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to pay an
initial partial filing fee of $37.33. Doc. 6. The undersigned imposed a
compliance deadline of December 1, 2025, and warned Plaintiff that the
failure to comply with the order likely would result in dismissal of this
action. Plaintiff did not comply with that order.
On December 16, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to explain
and show cause for his failure to comply with the undersigned’s order of
Case 5:25-cv-00241-MW-MJF Document 10 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
October 28, 2025. Doc. 9. Additionally, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff
to submit payment of the initial partial filing fee. Id. The undersigned
imposed a deadline of December 29, 2025, to comply and again warned
Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the order likely would result in
dismissal of this action. As of the date of this report and recommendation,
Plaintiff has not complied with that order.
D ISCUSSION
“Federal courts possess an inherent power to dismiss a complaint
for failure to comply with a court order.” Foudy v. Indian River Cnty.
Sheriff’s Off., 845 F.3d 1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted);
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (authorizing the court to dismiss an action, or any
claim within it, “[i]f a party fails to comply with an applicable rule or a
court order”). A district court also may dismiss a civil action sua sponte
for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962). Furthermore, a district court may dismiss
a civil action where a plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee. Wilson v. Sargent,
313 F.3d 1315, 1320–21 (11th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff has failed to comply
with two court orders. Plaintiff has offered no excuse for his failures and,
Case 5:25-cv-00241-MW-MJF Document 10 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
consequently, has not shown good cause. Accordingly, dismissal of this
civil action is appropriate.
CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with court orders, failed to pay
the 	filing 	fee, 	and 	failed 	to 	prosecute 	this 	action 	the 	undersigned
respectfully RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this action without prejudice.
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 14th day of January, 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge 	to 	address 	preliminary 	matters 	and to 	make
recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),
(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to these proposed
findings and recommendations must be filed within
fourteen 	(14) 	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	the 	report 	and
recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may
appear 	on 	the 	electronic 	docket 	is 	for 	the 	court’s
internal use only and does not control. An objecting
party must serve a copy of the objections on all other
parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate
judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a
report 	and 	recommendation 	waives 	the 	right 	to
Case 5:25-cv-00241-MW-MJF Document 10 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th
Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 5:25-cv-00241-MW-MJF Document 10 Filed 01/14/26 Page 4 of 4