NEWELL v. MYERS et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALBANY DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER NEWELL, 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	: 	Case No. 1:23-cv-14-LAG-AGH
:
WARDEN DARREN MYERS, et al., 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
_________________________________ 	:
RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
On August 29, 2025, Defendants Bradford and Shores (“Defendants”) filed a
motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against them contending that they were barred
based on release in bankruptcy. 	Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss 5, ECF No. 108. 	The same
day, the Court notified Plaintiff of his right to respond to the motion within twenty-
one days. 	Order 2, ECF No. 109. 	Plaintiff was informed that if he did not respond
to the motion to rebut Defendants’ legal arguments, the statements therein could be
“accepted as uncontested and correct.” 	Id. at 1. 	Plaintiff did not file a response to
Defendants’ motion. 	On December 1, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause
to the Court within fourteen days why Defendants’ arguments should not be accepted
as uncontested and correct, their motion deemed unopposed, and their motion to
dismiss granted. 	Order, ECF No. 114. 	Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to
respond, the Claims against Defendants would be dismissed. 	Id.
The time for a response has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a response to
the 	order 	to 	show 	cause 	or 	Defendants’ 	motion 	to 	dismiss. 	It 	is 	therefore
recommended that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be deemed uncontested, that the
Case 1:23-cv-00014-LAG-AGH Document 115 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 3

2
motion be granted, and that this case be dismissed without prejudice. 	See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b)(authorizing a court to dismiss an action for a plaintiff’s failure to
prosecute or comply with a court order); see also Coleman v. St. Lucie Cnty. Jail, 433
F. App’x 716, 718 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal for failure to prosecute and
comply with a court order); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802
(11th Cir. 2006) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for
failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”) (citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty.
Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)).1
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written
objections to this Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to file objections,
within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy hereof. 	Any objection should
be no longer than TWENTY (20) PAGES in length. 	See M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.4. 	The
district 	judge 	shall 	make 	a 	de 	novo 	determination 	of 	those 	portions 	of 	the
Recommendation 	to 	which 	objection 	is 	made. 	All 	other 	portions 	of 	the
Recommendation may be reviewed for clear error.
Pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a
magistrate 	judge’s 	findings 	or 	recommendations 	contained 	in 	a 	report 	and
recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the
right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual
and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and
1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit
adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to close of
business on September 30, 1981.
Case 1:23-cv-00014-LAG-AGH Document 115 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 3

3
the consequences on appeal for failing to object. 	In the absence of a proper objection,
however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests
of justice.”2
SO RECOMMENDED, this 12th day of January, 2026.
s/ Amelia G. Helmick
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2 Defendants filed a motion for ruling (ECF No. 113), requesting that the Court issue a ruling on their
motion to dismiss. The Court recommends that this motion be TERMINATED AS MOOT.
Case 1:23-cv-00014-LAG-AGH Document 115 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 3