United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Dublin Division
April 17, 2015
WARREN ADAM TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY CONSOLIDATED COMMISSIONERS; MAYOR DAVID S. COPENHAVER; MAYOR PRO TEM COREY JOHNSON; J. PATRICK CLAIBORNE; and GWENDOLYN B. TAYLOR, Defendants.
J. RANDAL HALL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Warren Adam Taylor's "Objection" to this Court's Order directing him to respond to Defendant Gwendolyn Taylor's Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 39.) On February 13, 2015, Defendant Taylor filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's complaint, which went without response. (Doc. 35.) Given Plaintiff's status as a pro se litigant, and in lieu of immediately granting the motion as unopposed, the Court entered an Order (1) directing Plaintiff to respond to the pending Motion to Dismiss and (2) warning him of the consequences of a failure to respond, specifically including dismissal under Local Rule 41 for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 37.) The new deadline to respond to the Motion to Dismiss has come and gone without any action from Plaintiff.
Plaintiff's objection, which is almost incomprehensible, appears to ask this Court to vacate and remand the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit "for subject matter jurisdiction for ante litem notices from the captioned defendants dated October 17, 2013; and December 4, 2015." (Doc. 39 at 2.) As best the Court can discern, Plaintiff takes issue with some proceedings that took place in the Superior Court of Richmond County, Georgia. Plaintiff closes his motion by reiterating his request that this Court vacate its Order directing Plaintiff to respond to the Motion to Dismiss and "remand back to the 11th Circuit for further consideration for the timely filed notice of appeal federal question involving a U.S. Constitutional Amendment under a federal statute and attorney fees." (Id.)
Addressing the substance of Plaintiff's objection, this Court is aware of no law that allows a district court to "vacate and remand" to the Court of Appeals. Indeed, the process works in the exact opposite direction. Accordingly, any such objection is OVERRULED.
As Plaintiff was instructed on March 16, 2015, Local Rule 41.1 allows the Court to dismiss any action with or without prejudice for want of prosecution if a party (1) fails to comply with an order compelling discovery; (2) willfully disobeys or neglects any order of the Court; or (3) fails to prosecute the action with reasonable promptness. Upon a review of the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff has both failed to comply with an Order of this Court and failed to prosecute the action with reasonable promptness. Specifically, this Court directed Plaintiff to respond to Defendant Gwendolyn Taylor's Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 37.) Plaintiff was given seven days to respond to the motion and has yet to do so, though he did file an objection to the Court's Order denying his Motion for Default Judgment. Even after this Court's Order directing Plaintiff to respond, rather than comply he filed the present objection to that Order, asking this Court to "vacate and remand" to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Plaintiff has been warned of the consequences of a failure to prosecute. And while the Court is cognizant of Plaintiff's pro se status, pro se litigants "are not exempt from this requirement of diligent prosecution." Griffin v. Railey, No. 7:10-cv-67, 2011 WL 3861426, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 3, 2011). The decision to dismiss a case for want of prosecution lies within the district court's discretion and shall only be reversed for an abuse of discretion. Martin-Trigona v. Morris, 627 F.2d 680, 681 (5th Cir. 1980). In the instant case, Plaintiff has refused to move forward with his claims, instead focusing almost entirely on what he perceives to be Defendants' default. (See, e.g., doc. 29 (Motion for Clarification of Order Denying Motion for Default Judgment); doc. 32 (Objection to Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment); doc. 36 (Notice of Objection to Order Denying Motion for Default Judgment); doc. 39 (Objection to Court's Order Directing Plaintiff to Respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss).)
In the face of the Court's Order to more forward, Plaintiff has refused to litigate this case and respond to the pending Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. The Clerk is directed to terminate all motions and CLOSE the case.