DOSS v. FORD et al

Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
RICHARD DOSS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:24-cv-173-RH/MJF
TOMMY FORD, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with a court order and failed to
prosecute this action, the District Court should dismiss this action
without prejudice.
B ACKGROUND
Plaintiff commenced this civil action in a Florida court. On August
12, 2024, Defendants removed this action. Defendants alleged that the
District Court had subject-matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff asserted
claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. On August 13, 2024, the
clerk of the court sent to Plaintiff a notice that informed Plaintiff,
“[t]hroughout this case, you are required to advise the Clerk’s Office in
Case 5:24-cv-00173-RH-MJF Document 60 Filed 11/24/25 Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5
writing of any change in your mailing address by filing a Notice of
Change of Address.” Doc. 6 ¶ 6.
On October 27, 2025, the undersigned issued two orders. Docs. 55,
56. The clerk of the court mailed these orders to Plaintiff at his last
known address. On November 6, 2025, the orders were returned as
undeliverable. Doc. 57. The clerk of the court searched the Bay County
Jail roster, the Florida Department of Corrections offender database, and
the Bureau of Prison offender database. Plaintiff is no longer in Bay
County Jail’s custody, and he is not in the custody of the FDC or BOP.
Plaintiff has not notified the clerk of the court of his new mailing address.
On November 6, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to file a
notice of change of address and a notice expressing whether he was
interested in prosecuting this civil action. Doc. 58. The undersigned
imposed a compliance deadline of November 20, 2025. Id. at 2. The
undersigned warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the order would
result in this court presuming Plaintiff was no longer interested in
prosecuting this civil action and likely would result in dismissal of this
civil action. Id. As of the date of this report and recommendation, Plaintiff
has not complied with that order.
Case 5:24-cv-00173-RH-MJF Document 60 Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
The clerk of the court mailed the order to Plaintiff’s last known
address; however, due to Plaintiff’s failure to apprise the clerk’s office of
his current address, on November 19, 2025, the Bay County Jail returned
the order as undeliverable because Plaintiff was no longer in the custody
of the Bay County Jail. The clerk of the court also searched the Florida
Department of Corrections and Bureau of Prison offender databases and
could not locate Plaintiff.
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 a court
order and failed to prosecute this civil action. Furthermore, because this
court does not have Plaintiff’s most recent mailing address, it is unlikely
Case 5:24-cv-00173-RH-MJF Document 60 Filed 11/24/25 Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5
that Plaintiff will receive—and comply—with future court orders.1 It
appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this litigation, and, therefore,
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 24th day of November 2025.
/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
1 Because Plaintiff was released from custody and failed to provide the
jail and this court with Plaintiff’s most up-to-date mailing address, the
jail returned to this court the undersigned’s November 6, 2025, order.
Doc. 59.
Case 5:24-cv-00173-RH-MJF Document 60 Filed 11/24/25 Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5
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
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 5:24-cv-00173-RH-MJF Document 60 Filed 11/24/25 Page 5 of 5