THEZAN v. NICHOLAS et al

Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
ISRAEL THEZAN,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:25cv1752-AW-HTC
NICHOLAS, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Israel Thezan, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging four correctional
officers violated his Eighth Amendment rights when they used excessive force and
failed to protect him from an inmate-on-inmate rape. Doc. 1. On October 1, 2025,
the Court granted Thezan’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and set a deadline
of October 22, 2025, for Thezan to pay the initial partial filing fee (“IPFF”) of $4.67
in this case. Doc. 4. On October 28, the Court issued an Order directing Thezan to
show cause why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to pay the IPFF.
Doc. 5. On November 7, Thezan moved for an extension of time to pay the IPFF.
Doc. 6. The Court granted Thezan’s motion on November 10, extending his deadline
to November 24, 2025, and warning Thezan that his failure to comply “may result
in a recommendation that this case be dismissed.” Doc. 7.
Case 3:25-cv-01752-AW-HTC Document 8 Filed 12/03/25 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
Case No. 3:25cv1752-AW-HTC
To date, Thezan has not complied with this Court’s November 10 Order.
Based on the foregoing, dismissal of this case is appropriate. See Moon v. Newsome,
863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (“[D]ismissal upon disregard of an order,
especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of
discretion.”) (citations omitted); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x
802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under
[Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)] for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a
court order.”) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	This case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Thezan’s
failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court orders.
2. 	The clerk close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 3 rd day of December, 2025.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-01752-AW-HTC Document 8 Filed 12/03/25 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
Case No. 3:25cv1752-AW-HTC
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within
fourteen (14) 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
and does not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of its objections upon all
other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or
recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the right to
challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1.
Case 3:25-cv-01752-AW-HTC Document 8 Filed 12/03/25 Page 3 of 3