DEVONTE J. MCCOY

v.

BRANTLEY SCOTT CLARK, JR.

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 August 12, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on the court-approved form accompanied by payment of $405 or a properly-completed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 4. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of September 11, 2025, and warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with that order likely would result in dismissal of this action. Plaintiff did not comply with that order.

On September 30, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show cause for his failure to comply with the undersigned's order of August 12, 2025. Doc. 6. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of October 14, 2025 and again warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the order likely would result in dismissal of this action. Plaintiff has not complied with that order.

DISCUSSION

"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.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962). Furthermore, a district court may dismiss a civil action where 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 with two court orders. Plaintiff has offered no excuse for his failures and, consequently, has not shown good cause.

CONCLUSION

Because Plaintiff failed to comply with court orders, failed to pay the filing fee, and failed to prosecute this action, 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 28th day of October 2025.

Is/ Michael J. Frank Michael J. Frank United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

The District Court referred this case to a magistrate judge 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). Objections to this report and recommendation must be filed within fourteen days. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court's internal use only and does not control. A party who fails to object to the magistrate 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.