RICHARD DANIEL VAUGHN
v.
D.S. WALDECK, ET AL.
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 recommended dismissal of the case without prejudice due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders.
The plaintiff was ordered to submit service copies of his complaint or pay a fee, and later ordered to show cause why the case should not be dismissed…
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 Discretionary Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
On August 8, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff Richard Daniel Vaughn to, within twenty-one days, either submit three service copies of his complaint (Doc. 1) or pay $19.50 to the Court so the clerk could make the three service copies for him. Doc. 5. The Court also warned Vaughn that his failure to comply with the August 8 Order could result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. After Vaughn failed to comply within the allotted time, the Court ordered him on September 5, 2025, to show cause within fourteen days why this case should not be dismissed due to his failure to comply with the August 8 Order. Doc. 6. To date, Vaughn has not responded to the September 5 Order or complied with the August 8 Order. Based on the foregoing, dismissal of this case is appropriate. See Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep't, 205 F. App'x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) ("The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under [Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b)] for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.") (citations omitted); Moon v. Newsome, 863 F. 2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (“[D]ismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.") (citations omitted). Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: 1. That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to Vaughn's failure to comply with Court orders. 2.
That the clerk close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 25th day of September, 2025. // Hope Thai Cannon HOPE THAI CANNON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE NOTICE TO THE PARTIES Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Report and Recommendation. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court's internal use only and does not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of its objections upon all other parties. 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 the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1.
Case No. 1:25cv225-TKW-HTC