RANDOLPH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al

Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
GENA C. RANDOLPH,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-226-AW-MJF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
and BUREAU OF PRISONS,
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 2, 2026, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal because Plaintiff’s
complaint violated the Local Rules and failed to state a plausible claim
for relief against the Bureau of Prisons. Doc. 8. The undersigned imposed
a compliance deadline of February 2, 2026, and warned Plaintiff that the
Case 5:25-cv-00226-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 03/17/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
failure to comply with the order likely would result in dismissal of this
action. Id. at 6. Plaintiff did not comply with that order.
On February 18, 2026, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show
cause for her failure to comply with the undersigned’s order of January
2, 2026. Doc. 9. The undersigned imposed a deadline of March 3, 2026,
and again warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the order likely
would result in dismissal of this action. Id. As of the date of this report
and recommendation, Plaintiff has not complied with that order.
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. Plaintiff has offered no
Case 5:25-cv-00226-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 03/17/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
excuse for her failures and, consequently, has not shown 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 17th 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 	the
undersigned to address preliminary matters and to
make 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. 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 5:25-cv-00226-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 03/17/26 Page 3 of 3