PATTERSON v. AHPC SOCIAL TALLAHASSEE LLC et al

Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
NADIA PATTERSON,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 4:25-cv-409-AW-MJF
AHPC SOCIAL TALLAHASSEE
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with two court orders and failed
to prosecute this action, the District Court should dismiss this action
without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
On January 8, 2026, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to submit
service copies of her complaint and to complete and return specified
forms. 	Doc. 	8. 	The 	undersigned 	imposed 	a 	compliance 	deadline 	of
February 6, 2026, and warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with
the order likely would result in dismissal of this action. Id. at 4. Plaintiff
did not comply with that order.
Case 4:25-cv-00409-AW-MJF Document 12 Filed 03/20/26 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
On February 20, 2026, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show
cause for her failure to comply with the undersigned’s order of January
8, 2026. Doc. 9. The undersigned imposed a deadline of March 6, 2026,
and again warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the order likely
would result in dismissal of this action. Id. Plaintiff has not complied
with that order. On March 10, 2026, the United States Postal Service
returned the undersigned’s orders to the clerk’s office as “undeliverable.”
See Docs. 10 & 11.
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 has failed
to prosecute this action. Furthermore, Plaintiff has offered no excuses for
Case 4:25-cv-00409-AW-MJF Document 12 Filed 03/20/26 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
her failures and, consequently, has not shown good cause. Although the
orders were returned undeliverable, Plaintiff knew that she had a duty “
to timely notify the Clerk’s office if there [was] any change to [her]
mailing address,” and she understood that a “failure to keep a current
address on file with the Clerk’s Office may result in dismissal” of this
action. Doc. 1 at 8. Plaintiff did not timely notify the Clerk’s Office of any
change of address. Plaintiff’s failure to receive this court’s orders does not
constitute 	good 	cause. 	Accordingly, 	dismissal 	of 	this 	civil 	action 	is
appropriate.
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this action without prejudice.
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 20th day of March, 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 	address 	preliminary 	matters 	and to 	make
Case 4:25-cv-00409-AW-MJF Document 12 Filed 03/20/26 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),
(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 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 and does not control. An objecting
party must serve a copy of the objections on 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
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th
Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 4:25-cv-00409-AW-MJF Document 12 Filed 03/20/26 Page 4 of 4