DOBY v. DIXON et al

Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
JAMES DOUGLAS DOBY, III,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-191-MW-MJF
RICKY DIXON, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed because
Plaintiff failed to comply with two court orders and applicable court rules,
and failed to pay the filing fee or properly move for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, a Florida prisoner, commenced this civil action by filing a
pro se civil-rights complaint, an application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”), and a motion for default judgment. Docs. 1–3. Plaintiff’s
complaint and IFP application were deficient in several respects. See Doc.
5.
Case 5:25-cv-00191-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 10/29/25 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
On August 1, 2025, the undersigned instructed Plaintiff as to the
deficiencies in his complaint and IFP application, and ordered Plaintiff
to file the following: (1) a notice of voluntary dismissal; or (2) an amended
civil-rights complaint on the Northern District’s form accompanied by the
$405.00 filing fee or a complete application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Doc. 5. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of
September 2, 2025, and warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the
order likely would result in this case being dismissed. Id. at 7.
To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the order dated August 1,
2025, and has not responded to the 14-day show-cause order entered on
September 16, 2025. Doc. 6.1
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
1 A copy of the September 16 show-cause order was remailed to Plaintiff
on September 29, 2025. See Doc. 7. That mail was not returned to the
court.
Case 5:25-cv-00191-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 10/29/25 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
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). Furthermore, a district court may dismiss a
civil action when a plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee or demonstrate that
he qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); N.D.
Fla. Loc. R. 5.3; Wilson v. Sargent, 313 F.3d 1315, 1320–21 (11th Cir.
2002).
Plaintiff has failed to comply with two court orders and applicable
rules for the Northern District of Florida, failed to prosecute this action,
and failed to pay the filing fee or file a proper motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has offered no excuse for his failures and,
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.
Case 5:25-cv-00191-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 10/29/25 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
2. 	DIRECT The clerk of court to close this case file.
At Panama City, Florida, this 29th day of October 2025.
/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 5:25-cv-00191-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 10/29/25 Page 4 of 4