DANIELS v. MARCELLETTA et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
DARRYL C. DANIELS,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No.: 3:25cv2122/LAC/ZCB
OFFICER MARCELLETTA, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action by filing a civil
rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). On October 30, 2025,
the Court ordered Plaintiff to either pay the $405.00 filing fee or file a
properly completed in forma pauperis (IFP) motion within twenty-one
days. 	(Doc. 3). 	The Court directed the Clerk of Court to send Plaintiff
the correct set of IFP forms and notified Plaintiff that failure to comply
with the Court’s order would result in a recommendation of dismissal of
the case. (Id.).
Plaintiff filed an IFP motion, but it did not comply with the federal
IFP statute or the Court’s local rules. 	(Doc. 4). 	Specifically, Plaintiff
failed to file his IFP motion on the Court’s official form. N.D. Fla. Loc. R.
5.3 (requiring a party who moves to proceed IFP to file the motion on the
Case 3:25-cv-02122-LC-ZCB Document 9 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 4

Court’s official form). 	He also failed to provide the requisite supporting
documentation for the IFP motion, specifically, a Prisoner Consent Form
and Financial Certificate signed by a prison official and an attached
inmate 	account 	statement 	reflecting 	all 	transactions 	in 	his 	inmate
account for the preceding six-month period. For these reasons, the Court
denied Plaintiff’s IFP motion, again directed the Clerk to send Plaintiff
the IFP forms, again ordered Plaintiff to either pay the $405.00 filing fee
or file a properly completed 	in forma pauperis 	(IFP) motion within
twenty-one days, and again notified Plaintiff that his failure to comply
would result in a recommendation of dismissal of this case. (Doc. 5).
Plaintiff filed another IFP motion, but it still suffered from the
same deficiencies as his previous IFP motion. 	(Doc. 6).1 	The Court
provided Plaintiff one final opportunity to avoid dismissal. On December
11, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to do one of two things within
twenty-one days, either (1) file a Prisoner Consent Form and Financial
Certificate signed by a prison official with an attached computer printout
of all transactions in Plaintiff’s inmate account from the preceding six-
1 Plaintiff filed only one page of the two-page Prisoner Consent Form and
Financial Certificate; the form was not signed by a prison official; and
Plaintiff did not attach a printout of transactions from his inmate
account. (Doc. 6).
Case 3:25-cv-02122-LC-ZCB Document 9 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 4

month period, or (2) show cause why this case should not be dismissed
for failure to comply with an order of the Court. 	(Doc. 8). 	The Court
warned Plaintiff again that his failure to comply with the Court’s order
would result in a recommendation of dismissal of the case. (Id. at 2).
The deadline for compliance with the Court’s order has passed, and
Plaintiff has not responded. Dismissal is, therefore, warranted. See N.D.
Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (authorizing dismissal when “a party fails to comply with
an applicable rule or court order”); see also Frith v. Curry, 812 F. App’x
933, 935 (11th Cir. 2020) (affirming dismissal where the plaintiff failed
to pay the initial partial filing fee and failed to respond to a magistrate
judge’s order to show cause as to why the filing fee had not been paid).
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be
DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with
an order of the Court.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 20th day of January 2026.
/s/ Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice to the Parties
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must
be 	filed 	within 	fourteen 	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may 	appear 	on 	the
Case 3:25-cv-02122-LC-ZCB Document 9 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 4

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 	challenge 	on 	appeal 	the 	district 	court’s 	order 	based 	on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28
U.S.C. § 636.
Case 3:25-cv-02122-LC-ZCB Document 9 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 4