Filed: Oct. 11, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 11, 2016
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GARY R. JONES , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, a pro se inmate in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, initiated this case on September 25, 2015, by filing a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on March 11, 2016, ECF No. 10, which the Court granted on July 7, 2016. (ECF No. 13.) As a result, Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed. ( Id. ) The Court, however, granted Plaintiff leave to file an ame
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GARY R. JONES , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, a pro se inmate in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, initiated this case on September 25, 2015, by filing a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on March 11, 2016, ECF No. 10, which the Court granted on July 7, 2016. (ECF No. 13.) As a result, Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed. ( Id. ) The Court, however, granted Plaintiff leave to file an amen..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
GARY R. JONES, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, a pro se inmate in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, initiated this case on September 25, 2015, by filing a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on March 11, 2016, ECF No. 10, which the Court granted on July 7, 2016. (ECF No. 13.) As a result, Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed. (Id.)
The Court, however, granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days, on or before August 8, 2016. (Id.) The Court advised Plaintiff that "failure to file an amended complaint shall result in dismissal of this case with prejudice without further notice." (Id.) As of the date of this Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint.1
Discussion
Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's grant of leave to file an amended complaint warrants dismissal of his case. A district court has inherent power to control its docket, which includes dismissing a case. Quality Foods de Centro Am., S.A. v. Latin Am. Agribusiness Dev. Corp., S.A., 711 F.2d 989, 998 (11th Cir. 1983). However, "a dismissal with prejudice is a `drastic remedy' that only is proper in extreme circumstances when lesser sanctions are not feasible." Id.
Dismissal of a plaintiff's claims with prejudice is permitted for failure to comply with the court's orders when the plaintiff is aware of the consequences of failing to comply. Shortz v. City of Tuskegee, Ala., 352 F. App'x 355, 359 (11th Cir. 2009). Because the Court advised Plaintiff of the consequences of failing to file an amended complaint, the Court finds that dismissal of his case with prejudice is appropriate.
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to file an amended complaint.
