YASHAYAHU v. HOUSING URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
ZAKIYAH RUFFIN
YASHAYAHU,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 4:25-cv-521-RH-MJF
HOUSING URBAN
DEVELOPMENT,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with two court orders, failed to
pay the filing fee, and failed to prosecute this action, the District Court
should dismiss this action without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
On January 2, 2026, the undersigned denied Plaintiff’s motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered Plaintiff to pay the
$405.00 filing fee or file a notice of voluntary dismissal. Doc. 4. The
undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of February 2, 2026, and
warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the order likely would
Case 4:25-cv-00521-RH-MJF Document 8 Filed 03/17/26 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
result in dismissal of this action. Id. at 2. Plaintiff did not comply with
that order.
On February 18, 2026, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show
cause for his failure to comply with the undersigned’s order of January 2,
2026. Doc. 5. The undersigned imposed a deadline of March 3, 2026, and
again warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the order likely
would result in dismissal of this action. Id. As of the date of this report
and recommendation, 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. Co.,
370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962). Furthermore, a district court may dismiss a
civil action when a plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee. Wilson v. Sargent,
313 F.3d 1315, 1320–21 (11th Cir. 2002). 	Plaintiff has failed to comply
Case 4:25-cv-00521-RH-MJF Document 8 Filed 03/17/26 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
with two court orders, has failed to pay the filing fee, and has failed to
prosecute this action. Plaintiff has offered no excuse for his failures and,
consequently, has not shown good cause. Accordingly, dismissal of this
civil action is appropriate.
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	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 17th day of March 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The 	District 	Court 	referred 	this 	case 	to 	the
undersigned 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 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 the objections on all other
parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate
Case 4:25-cv-00521-RH-MJF Document 8 Filed 03/17/26 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
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 4:25-cv-00521-RH-MJF Document 8 Filed 03/17/26 Page 4 of 4