ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BENJAMIN W. CHEESBRO, Magistrate Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Orders of July 25, 2018 and August 14, 2019. Docs. 8, 20. For the following reasons, I RECOMMEND the Court DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint, doc. 1, for failure to follow this Court's Orders and DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal. I further RECOMMEND the Court DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis.1 Based on these recommendations, I also RECOMMEND the Court DENY as moot Defendant Smith's Motion for Summary Judgment.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Docs. 1, 2. In its Order granting Plaintiff in forma pauperis status, the Court advised Plaintiff he was to immediately inform the Court in writing of any change in his address and warned Plaintiff his failure to do so would result in the dismissal of his case. Doc. 8 at 3. I conducted the requisite frivolity review of Plaintiff's Complaint and issued an Order directing service of Plaintiff's Complaint on Defendants Smith and Porter. Doc. 15. I also issued a Report recommending the dismissal of certain claims Plaintiff set forth in his Complaint and his claims against Defendants Hill and Stone in their entirety. Doc. 14. This Order and Report and Recommendation were sent to Plaintiff at his last known address but were returned to the Court as undeliverable with the notations "Return to Sender, Unable to Forward." Doc. 16.

The Honorable Lisa Godbey Wood adopted my recommendations as the opinion of the Court and noted the Court's Order and Report and Recommendation had been returned. Doc. 20 at 2. Judge Wood ordered Plaintiff to either show cause, in writing, why he failed to update his address or to update his mailing address. Id. at 3. Judge Wood forewarned Plaintiff his failure to follow this Court's Order would result in the dismissal of his cause of action. Id. Plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of his updated mailing address or to otherwise respond to the Court's August 14, 2019 Order. In fact, the Court's Order was also returned with the notations "Return to Sender, Undeliverable as Addresses, and Unable to Forward." Doc. 24. Additionally, the Clerk of Court notified Plaintiff of Defendant Smith's motion for summary judgment, doc. 22, and that notification was also returned to this Court. Doc. 25.

DISCUSSION

The Court must now determine how to address Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Court's Orders. For the reasons set forth below, I RECOMMEND the Court DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety and DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

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

A district court may dismiss a plaintiff's claims sua sponte pursuant to either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) ("Rule 41(b)") or the court's inherent authority to manage its docket. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962);2 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 § 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 § 1983 claims where plaintiff failed to follow court order to file amended complaint and court had informed plaintiff that noncompliance could lead to dismissal). With Plaintiff having failed to follow this Court's Orders or otherwise notify the Court, in writing, of any change in his address, the Court has no means of communicating with Plaintiff and cannot move forward with this case. Moreover, Plaintiff was given notice of the consequences of his failure to follow the Court's Orders, and Plaintiff has not made any effort to do so or to otherwise prosecute this case. Plaintiff has not filed anything in this case in over a year's time.

Thus, the Court should DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint, doc.1, for failure to follow this Court's Orders and DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal.

II. Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis

The Court should also deny Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Though Plaintiff has 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 taken 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. County 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). An in forma pauperis action is frivolous and 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 Orders, there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, and an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Thus, the Court should DENY Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on appeal.

CONCLUSION

For the above-stated reasons, I RECOMMEND the Court DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint, doc. 1, for failure to follow this Court's Orders and DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal. I further RECOMMEND the Court DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Based on these recommendations, I also RECOMMEND the Court DENY as moot Defendant Smith's Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Court ORDERS any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation to file specific written objections within 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 Complaint 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.

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 Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to serve a copy of this Report and Recommendation upon Plaintiff at his last known address and Defendants Smith and Porter.

SO ORDERED and REPORTED and RECOMMENDED.