ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

HOPE THAI CANNON, Magistrate Judge.

This case is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Clarification or Alternative Extension of Time of Deadlines. ECF Doc. 40. Plaintiff was released from the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections ("FDOC") on May 23, 2019. ECF Doc. 36-1. Since Plaintiff's release, Defendants note: (1) the undersigned's June 21, 2019, Report and Recommendation was returned to the Court as undeliverable on July 5, 2019, with the notation "Return to Sender; Attempted — Not Known; Unable to Forward" (ECF Doc. 39); (2) the copy of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Injunctive Relief Claims that was mailed to Plaintiff was returned to Defendants' counsel as undeliverable on July 8, 2019; (3) they "have also sent Plaintiff a letter and some Discovery but have not received any response and [Defendants'] counsel expects the mail will also be returned as undeliverable"; and (4) they "also intend to conduct Plaintiff's deposition but have not been able to get in touch with Plaintiff to arrange for the deposition to be conducted." ECF Doc. 40 at 2-3. Based on the foregoing, "Defendants believe that Plaintiff may have abandoned this litigation." Id. at 3. Defendants request clarification "as to what needs to be done by Defendants which has not already been tried so that this Court can determine whether Plaintiff has abandoned this litigation." Id. Alternatively, Defendants request an extension of all deadlines "so that Defendants can conduct proper discovery and litigate the issues in this case." Id. at 4.

Defendants' motion for clarification will be granted to the extent the undersigned will issue a recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has failed to comply with his obligation to keep the Court—and opposing parties—apprised of his current mailing address. The Court previously reminded Plaintiff "to keep the clerk . . . advised of any change in his mailing address should he be transferred, released from prison, or otherwise relocated." ECF Doc. 9 at 4. The Court warned Plaintiff that a "[f]ailure to do so may result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with an order of the court, should court orders not be able to reach plaintiff." Id.

Since his release from FDOC custody, Plaintiff has not provided the clerk with an updated mailing address, and he has not submitted anything to the Court related to this case. Based on the Court's inability to contact Plaintiff, the issuance of any further orders would be futile. Thus, the undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed without prejudice.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendants' Motion for Clarification or Alternative Extension of Time of Deadlines (ECF Doc. 40) is GRANTED to the extent the undersigned will recommend that this case be dismissed without prejudice. The alternative request for an extension of deadlines is DENIED without prejudice to re-filing after the recommendation is ruled upon by the District Judge.

And it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed within 14 days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the Court's internal use only and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon the Magistrate Judge and all other parties. A party failing to object to a Magistrate Judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 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.