United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Christopher L. Ray United States Magistrate Judge.
April 19, 2019, this Court recommended the dismissal of a
complaint filed by plaintiff against multiple defendants
because he failed to comply with a Court order and failed to
update his address with the Court. CV419-061, doc. 5. That
recommendation was adopted by the assigned District Judge on
May 10, 2019 when plaintiff failed to file objections.
Id., doc. 7. Plaintiff has since filed a series of
cases-listed above-alleging factually similar circumstances
against several of the defendants in the previous cases. He
has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis
in each of these cases. These applications, however, do not
contain sufficient indicia of indigency. Accordingly, the
Court entered an order requiring plaintiff to supplement his
IFP request by August 19, 2019. See, e.g., CV419-
136, doc. 8. Plaintiff failed to do so, instead filing a
“Motion to Expedite Ruling.” Doc.
In this motion, he alleges that the undersigned “has
partaken in illegal acts such as bribery which in the same
would be corruption.” Id. at 2. Based on some
of these allegations, the Court was concerned that plaintiff
had either filed an appeal with the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals either on the merits of the prior dismissal or
pursuant to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980,
28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364 and the Rules for
Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings. Either
would have called into question the jurisdiction of this
Court or the ability of the undersigned to dispose of
plaintiff's case. However, it has been nearly four months
since plaintiff filed his allegations and the Court has not
been made aware of any properly filed complaint or appeal.
See 28 U.S.C. § 351(c).
these cases should, therefore, be dismissed without prejudice
because plaintiff has failed to comply with the August 19,
2019, deadline for returning an amended IFP request. This
Court has the authority to prune cases from its dockets where
parties have failed to comply with its Orders. See
L.R. 41(b); see Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S.
626, 630-31 (1962) (courts have the inherent authority to
dismiss claims for lack of prosecution); Mingo v. Sugar
Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989);
Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir.
1983); Floyd v. United States, CV491-277 (S.D. Ga.
June 10, 1992). Plaintiff's case should thus be
DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to
comply with the Court's Order.
an abundance of caution, in the event plaintiff did intend to
file a complaint regarding the undersigned, the Clerk of
Court is DIRECTED to immediately submit a
copy of this Report and Recommendation (R&R) as well as a
copy of plaintiff's Motion to Expedite Ruling to the
Chief Judge of the District for his review and
reassignment-if the chief judge believes it is
necessary. If, after the expiration of 14 days, the
Chief Judge has not taken any action to refer this matter to
the Chief Judge of the Circuit, see 11th Cir. JDCR
5, this R&R shall be submitted to the district judge
assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 72.3. Within 14
days of service, any party may file written objections to
this R&R with the Court and serve a copy on all parties.
The document should be captioned “Objections to
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations.” Any
request for additional time to file objections should be
filed with the Clerk for consideration by the assigned
the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this
R&R together with any objections to the assigned district
judge. The district judge will review the magistrate
judge's findings and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to
timely file objections will result in the waiver of rights on
appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v. V.A. Leasing
Corp., 648 Fed.Appx. 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016);
Mitchell v. United States, 612 Fed.Appx. 542, 545
(11th Cir. 2015).
ORDERED AND REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.
 Plaintiff has filed the same motion in
each of the above captioned cases. For ease of reference, the
Court cites to the document in CV419-136 at doc. 9.
 28 U.S.C. § 455 requires the
recusal of a judge where “he has a personal bias or
prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.”
It is the undersigned's opinion that the allegations
contained within the motion to expedite are too speculative
to convince a reasonable person of bias. See, e.g.,
United States v. Miranne, 688 F.2d 980, 985 (5th
Cir. 1982); see also doc. 9 at 2 (plaintiff's
allegation that he “currently [has] an alien substance
in my stomach that is attacking me daily and punishing me for
filing my complaints. Another source has control of my body
and putting corrupt thoughts in my head. I'm ...