ORDER and MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

R. STAN BAKER, Magistrate Judge.

This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order of March 29, 2016, (doc. 20), and his failure to prosecute this action. For the following reasons, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's claims without prejudice for failure to follow the Court's directive and failure to prosecute. I further RECOMMEND that Plaintiff be denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis and that all pending Motions be DENIED AS MOOT.

BACKGROUND

On June 10, 2015, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint contesting certain conditions of his confinement while housed at Ware State Prison in Waycross, Georgia. (Doc. 1.) With his Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 3.) The Court granted that Motion on June 12, 2015. (Doc. 4.)

On December 28, 2015, the undersigned issued an Order and Report and Recommendation following a frivolity review of Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. 12.) The Court directed a copy of Plaintiff's Complaint be served upon Defendants Tom Gramiak and Officer S. Crews. Id. Plaintiff did not file any objections, and the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation on January 25, 2016. (Doc. 13.)

In the Report and Recommendation, the Court provided instructions to Plaintiff regarding the prosecution of this action. (Doc. 12, pp. 11-14.) The Court instructed Plaintiff that if he "does not press his case forward, the Court may dismiss it for want of prosecution." (Id. at p. 12.) The Court specifically informed Plaintiff of his obligation to respond to a motion to dismiss within 14 days of service of such a motion. (Id. at p. 13.) The Court explained that, "Plaintiff's case may be dismissed for lack of prosecution if Plaintiff fails to respond to a motion to dismiss." Id.

On March 1, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. 17.) On March 29, 2016, the Court once again advised Plaintiff of his obligation to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 20.) The Court instructed Plaintiff that if he "does not respond to Defendants' motion within twenty-one (21) days, the Court will determine that there is no opposition to the motion and grant the motion as unopposed." (Id.) Plaintiff has entirely failed to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Indeed, Plaintiff has not made any filings in this case since August 17, 2015. (Doc. 9.)

DISCUSSION

The Court must now determine how to address Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Court's Orders and his failure to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's claims and DENY him leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

I. Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute and Follow this Court's Orders

A district court may dismiss a plaintiff's claims for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) ("Rule 41(b)") and the court's inherent authority to manage its docket. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962);1 Coleman v. St. Lucie Cty. Jail, 433 F. App'x 716, 718 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)). In particular, Rule 41(b) allows for the involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff's claims where he has failed to prosecute those claims, comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or local rules, or follow a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Coleman, 433 F. App'x at 718; Sanders v. Barrett, No. 05-12660, 2005 WL 2640979, at *1 (11th Cir. Oct. 17, 2005) (citing Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 192 (11th Cir. 1993)); cf. Local R. 41.1(b) ("[T]he assigned Judge may, after notice to counsel of record, sua sponte . . . dismiss any action for want of prosecution, with or without prejudice[,] . . . [based on] willful disobedience or neglect of any order of the Court.") (emphasis omitted). Additionally, a district court's "power to dismiss is an inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its orders and ensure prompt disposition of lawsuits." Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep't, 205 F. App'x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983)).

It is true that dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute is a "sanction . . . to be utilized only in extreme situations" and requires that a court "(1) conclud[e] a clear record of delay or willful contempt exists; and (2) mak[e] an implicit or explicit finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice." Thomas v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Educ., 170 F. App'x 623, 625-26 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Morewitz v. West of Eng. Ship Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass'n (Lux.), 62 F.3d 1356, 1366 (11th Cir. 1995)); see also Taylor v. Spaziano, 251 F. App'x 616, 619 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Morewitz, 62 F.3d at 1366). By contrast, dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute is not an adjudication on the merits, and, therefore, courts are afforded greater discretion in dismissing claims in this manner. Taylor, 251 F. App'x at 619; see also Coleman, 433 F. App'x at 719; Brown, 205 F. App'x at 802-03.

While the Court exercises its discretion to dismiss cases with caution, dismissal of this action without prejudice is warranted. See Coleman, 433 F. App'x at 719 (upholding dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute Section 1983 complaint where plaintiff did not respond to court order to supply defendant's current address for purpose of service); Taylor, 251 F. App'x at 620-21 (upholding dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute, because plaintiffs insisted on going forward with deficient amended complaint rather than complying, or seeking an extension of time to comply, with court's order to file second amended complaint); Brown, 205 F. App'x at 802-03 (upholding dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute Section 1983 claims, where plaintiff failed to follow court order to file amended complaint and court had informed plaintiff that noncompliance could lead to dismissal).

Despite having been advised of his obligation to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and the consequences for failing to respond, Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to Defendants' Motion. Additionally, with Plaintiff not having taken any action on this case for approximately ten months, he has failed to diligently prosecute his claims.

Thus, I RECOMMEND the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's Section 1983 Complaint, (doc. 1), without prejudice for failure to follow the Court's Orders and failure to prosecute and CLOSE this case.

II. Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis

The Court should also deny Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Though Plaintiff has, of course, not yet filed a notice of appeal, it would be appropriate to address that issue in the Court's order of dismissal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3) (trial court may certify that appeal is not take in good faith "before or after the notice of appeal is filed").

An appeal cannot be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies, either before or after the notice of appeal is filed, that the appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Good faith in this context must be judged by an objective standard. Busch v. Cty. of Volusia, 189 F.R.D. 687, 691 (M.D. Fla. 1999). A party does not proceed in good faith when he seeks to advance a frivolous claim or argument. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). A claim or argument is frivolous when it appears the factual allegations are clearly baseless or the legal theories are indisputably meritless. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). Or, stated another way, an in forma pauperis action is frivolous and, thus, not brought in good faith, if it is "without arguable merit either in law or fact." Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Brown v. United States, Nos. 407CV085, 403CR001, 2009 WL 307872, at *1-2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009).

Based on the above analysis of Plaintiff's failure to follow this Court's directives and failure to prosecute, there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, and an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Thus, in forma pauperis status on appeal should be DENIED.

CONCLUSION

For the above-stated reasons, I RECOMMEND the Court DISMISS this action, without prejudice, and DIRECT that the Clerk of Court enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal and CLOSE this case. I further RECOMMEND that the Court DENY Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

The Court ORDERS any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation to file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days of the date on which this Report and Recommendation is entered. Any objections asserting that the Magistrate Judge failed to address any contention raised in the pleading must also be included. Failure to do so will bar any later challenge or review of the factual findings or legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). A copy of the objections must be served upon all other parties to the action. The filing of objections is not a proper vehicle through which to make new allegations or present additional evidence.

Upon receipt of objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above, a United States District Judge will make a de novo determination of those portions of the report, proposed findings, or recommendation to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Objections not meeting the specificity requirement set out above will not be considered by a District Judge. A party may not appeal a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Appeals may be made only from a final judgment entered by or at the direction of a District Judge. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this Report and Recommendation upon the parties.

SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED, this 23rd day of June, 2016.