BEDGOOD v. BRETT et al

Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
JEREMY A. BEDGOOD,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:23-cv-282-TKW/MJF
REBECCA BRETT, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with two court orders and failed
to prosecute this action, the District Court should dismiss this action
without prejudice.
B ACKGROUND
On August 18, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to file a
response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The undersigned initially
imposed a compliance deadline of September 17, 2025. Doc. 52. The
undersigned 	twice 	extended 	the 	deadline 	and 	ultimately 	provided
Plaintiff until December 28, 2025, to file a response to Defendants’
motion 	to 	dismiss. 	Docs. 	54, 	56. 	The 	undersigned warned 	Plaintiff
multiple times that failure to comply with the undersigned’s orders likely
Case 5:23-cv-00282-TKW-MJF Document 58 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
would result in dismissal of this action. Docs. 52, 54, 56. Plaintiff did not
comply with the undersigned’s orders.
On December 31, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show
cause for his noncompliance with the undersigned’s order of August 18,
2025. 	Doc. 57. 	The 	undersigned 	imposed 	a 	compliance 	deadline 	of
January 14, 2026 and again warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply
with the order likely would result in dismissal of this action. 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). Plaintiff has failed to comply with two court
orders. Plaintiff has offered no excuse for his failures and, consequently,
Case 5:23-cv-00282-TKW-MJF Document 58 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
has not shown good cause. Accordingly, dismissal of this civil action is
appropriate.
CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with court orders 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 28th 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 for preliminary 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 days.
Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may 	appear 	on 	the
electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. 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. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 5:23-cv-00282-TKW-MJF Document 58 Filed 01/28/26 Page 3 of 3