BELAIR v. WARDEN FCI TALLAHASSEE et al

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
MICHELLE LORENE BELAIR,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 4:25cv375/AW/MAL
WARDEN, FCI TALLAHASSEE,
Respondents.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On September 25, 2025, this Court entered a detailed order identifying
deficiencies in Petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 and instructing her how to file a second amended petition if she
wished to proceed with this action. ECF No. 7. She was given a deadline of October
27, 2025, to file her second amended petition and two service copies, and she was
warned that failure to comply could result in a recommendation of dismissal of her
case. A copy of the order was sent to Petitioner at her address of record and the
address for “staff mail” at RRM, Kansas City.1 Petitioner did not respond.
1 The Bureau of Prisons’ website reflects Petitioner’s location as Kansas City RRM. See
https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/. She still has not filed a notice of change of address, and the
Bureau of Prisons’ website does not provide an address for inmates to receive mail at RRM Kansas
City or any RRM, only staff mail.
Case 4:25-cv-00375-AW-MAL Document 9 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
Therefore, on November 7, 2025, the Court entered an order directing
Petitioner to show cause why this case should not be dismissed due to Petitioner’s
failure to comply. ECF No. 8. Again, a copy of the order was sent to Petitioner at
both her address of record and to the address for “staff mail” at RRM Kansas City.
She was given until November 21, 2025, to respond. Petitioner has filed nothing
further.
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, typically upon motion of the defendant. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d
835, 838 (11th Cir. 1989) (citing cases). Rule 41.1 of the Local Rules of the Northern
District of Florida also authorizes the court to impose sanctions, up to and including
dismissal, for failure to comply with a rule or court order. Thus, because Petitioner
has failed to comply with Court orders necessary for the continuation of this case,
the amended petition should be dismissed without prejudice.
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:
1. Petitioner’s amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No.
6, be DISMISSED without prejudice for her failure to comply with an order of the
Court.
Case 4:25-cv-00375-AW-MAL Document 9 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
2. The clerk be directed to close the case file.
DONE on December 9, 2025.
s/ Midori A. Lowry
Midori A. Lowry
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The case was referred to a magistrate judge for the issuance of all preliminary
orders and any recommendations to the district court regarding dispositive matters.
See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); 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 its objections upon 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 4:25-cv-00375-AW-MAL Document 9 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 3