JACKMAN
v.
20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT ADMINISTRATION
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the action without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to comply with court orders and prosecute his claims.
Plaintiff failed to comply with court orders and prosecute his claims, despite multiple warnings and extensions. The magistrate judge recommended dism…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Willful Noncompliance cases and more on FLexlaw
EDERR and NICHOEL FORRETT,
Defendants. /
ORDER1
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 114). Judge McCoy recommends dismissing this action without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to comply with Court Orders or prosecute his claims. Neither party timely objected, so the matter is ripe for review.2
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
After careful consideration and an independent review of the file, the Court accepts and adopts the well-reasoned R&R in full. Judge McCoy did yeoman’s work to keep the case on track. And he afforded Plaintiff every opportunity to litigate this action. These endeavors included multiple extensions of time (even in the face of Plaintiff’s complete silence). Yet Plaintiff’s willful delay by failing to comply or prosecute eviscerated any effort to move the case forward—despite ample warnings over the result. So the Court concludes Judge McCoy got it right: dismissal without prejudice is appropriate because lesser sanctions would not suffice given this clear pattern of willful noncompliance. Tellingly, Plaintiff never objected to those factual findings. This not only buttresses the R&R’s findings; it also likely waives most (if not all) of Plaintiffs right to appeal them. E.g., Harrigan v. Metro Dade Police Dep't Station #4, 977 F. 3d 1185, 1191 (11th Cir. 2020). The R&R specifically warned Plaintiff of that too. (Doc. 114 at 9-10). Notably, as the R&R stated, Plaintiff is not a typical pro se litigant—he is a licensed attorney. (Docs. 115-15 at 7-8, 48; 115- 6 at 1). This only supports the conclusion Plaintiff's serial noncompliance militates in favor of dismissal. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 114) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order. 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with Court Orders and failure to prosecute. 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment, deny any pending motions as moot, terminate all deadlines, and close the case. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on September 8, 2021.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Harrigan v. Rodriguez, 977 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2020)