United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
STAN BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's failure to
comply with the Court's Order of January 11, 2019, (doc.
14), and his failure to prosecute this action. For the
following reasons, the Court DISMISSES
Plaintiff's claims without prejudice for
failure to follow the Court's directive and failure to
October 9, 2018, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a
Complaint in the Superior Court of Chatham County. (Doc.
1-1.) One month later, Defendants ILA Local 1414 and Timothy
Mackey removed the case to this Court. (Doc. 1.)
Contemporaneous with their Notice of Removal, these
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc.
6.) On January 11, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file
a response within twenty-one days either opposing the Motion
to Dismiss or indicating his lack of opposition. (Doc. 14.)
The Court alerted Plaintiff that, should he fail to respond
to the Motion to Dismiss, the Court would presume he does not
oppose the Motion. (Id. at pp. 1-2.) In addition,
the Court provided Plaintiff with a copy of Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12, 15, and 41 to ensure that he had full
notice of the requirements of the Rules regarding motions to
dismiss. Id. Plaintiff has entirely failed to
respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Indeed,
Plaintiff has not made any filings in this case since
Defendants removed the action to this Court nearly six months
Court must now determine how to address Plaintiff's
failure to comply with this Court's Order, his failure to
respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and his failure
to diligently pursue his claims. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's
district court may dismiss a plaintiff's claims for
failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) (“Rule 41(b)”) and the
court's inherent authority to manage its docket. Link
v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962); Coleman v.
St. Lucie Cty. Jail, 433 Fed.Appx. 716, 718 (11th Cir.
2011) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and Betty K Agencies,
Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir.
2005)). In particular, Rule 41(b) allows for the involuntary
dismissal of a plaintiff's claims where he has failed to
prosecute those claims, comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or local rules, or follow a court order.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); see also Coleman, 433 Fed.Appx.
at 718; Sanders v. Barrett, No. 05-12660, 2005 WL
2640979, at *1 (11th Cir. Oct. 17, 2005) (citing Kilgo v.
Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 192 (11th Cir. 1993)); cf.
Local R. 41.1(b) (“[T]he assigned Judge may, after
notice to counsel of record, sua sponte . . . dismiss any
action for want of prosecution, with or without prejudice[, ]
. . . [based on] willful disobedience or neglect of any order
of the Court.”) (emphasis omitted). Additionally, a
district court's “power to dismiss is an inherent
aspect of its authority to enforce its orders and ensure
prompt disposition of lawsuits.” Brown v.
Tallahassee Police Dep't, 205 Fed.Appx. 802, 802
(11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d
1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983)).
true that dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute
is a “sanction . . . to be utilized only in extreme
situations” and requires that a court “(1)
conclud[e] a clear record of delay or willful contempt
exists; and (2) mak[e] an implicit or explicit finding that
lesser sanctions would not suffice.” Thomas v.
Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Educ., 170 Fed.Appx. 623, 625-26
(11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Morewitz v. West of Eng. Ship
Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass'n (Lux.), 62 F.3d
1356, 1366 (11th Cir. 1995)); see also Taylor v.
Spaziano, 251 Fed.Appx. 616, 619 (11th Cir. 2007)
(citing Morewitz, 62 F.3d at 1366). By contrast,
dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute
is not an adjudication on the merits, and, therefore, courts
are afforded greater discretion in dismissing claims in this
manner. Taylor, 251 Fed.Appx. at 619; see also
Coleman, 433 Fed.Appx. at 719; Brown, 205
Fed.Appx. at 802-03.
the Court exercises its discretion to dismiss cases with
caution, dismissal of this action without prejudice is
warranted. See Coleman, 433 Fed.Appx. at 719
(upholding dismissal without prejudice for failure to
prosecute Section 1983 complaint where plaintiff did not
respond to court order to supply defendant's current
address for purpose of service); Taylor, 251
Fed.Appx. at 620-21 (upholding dismissal without prejudice
for failure to prosecute, because plaintiffs insisted on
going forward with deficient amended complaint rather than
complying, or seeking an extension of time to comply, with
court's order to file second amended complaint);
Brown, 205 Fed.Appx. at 802-03 (upholding dismissal
without prejudice for failure to prosecute Section 1983
claims, where plaintiff failed to follow court order to file
amended complaint and court had informed plaintiff that
noncompliance could lead to dismissal).
having been advised of his obligation to respond to
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and the consequences for
failing to respond, Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to
Defendants' Motion. Additionally, with Plaintiff not
having taken any action on this case for approximately six
months, he has failed to diligently prosecute his claims.
above-stated reasons, the Court DISMISSES
this action, without prejudice, and DIRECTS
the Clerk of Court to enter the appropriate judgment of
dismissal and to CLOSE this