GIBSON v. SCOTT et al

Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
THOMAS BARRAY GIBSON,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 1:25-cv-328-MW-MJF
CHAD SCOTT, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed because
Plaintiff failed to comply with two court orders.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff commenced this civil action on October 8, 2025, by filing a
pro se civil-rights complaint. Doc. 1. Plaintiff’s complaint was deficient in
several respects. See Doc. 7.
On November 26, 2025, the undersigned instructed Plaintiff as to
the 	deficiencies 	in 	his 	complaint, 	and 	ordered 	Plaintiff 	to 	file 	the
following: (1) a notice of voluntary dismissal; or (2) an amended complaint
on the Northern District’s form that corrected the deficiencies. Doc. 7.
Case 1:25-cv-00328-MW-MJF Document 9 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of December 29, 2025,
and warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the order likely would
result in this case being dismissed. Id. at 6.
To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the order dated November
26, 2025, and has not responded to the 14-day show-cause order entered
on January 26, 2026. Doc. 8.
D ISCUSSION
“Federal courts possess an inherent power to dismiss a complaint
for failure to comply with a court order.” Foudy v. Indian River Cnty.
Sheriff’s Off., 845 F.3d 1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted);
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (authorizing the court to dismiss an action, or any
claim within it, “[i]f a party fails to comply with an applicable rule or a
court order”). A district court also may dismiss a civil action sua sponte
for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co.,
370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962).
Plaintiff has failed to comply with two court orders and failed to
prosecute this action. Plaintiff has offered no excuse for his failures and,
Case 1:25-cv-00328-MW-MJF Document 9 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
consequently, has not shown good cause. Accordingly, dismissal of this
action is appropriate.
C ONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	stated 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this case without prejudice.
2. 	DIRECT The clerk of court to close this case file.
At Panama City, Florida, this 20th day of February, 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge to make recommendations regarding dispositive
matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Objections to
these proposed findings and recommendations must be
filed within fourteen 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. A party must serve a copy of any
objections on all other parties. A party who fails to
object to this report and recommendation 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.
Case 1:25-cv-00328-MW-MJF Document 9 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 3