WROMAS v. CROMARTIE et al

Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
KEITH WROMAS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-135-AW-MJF
COMARTIE, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with two court orders and failed
to prosecute this case, the District Court should dismiss this action
without prejudice.
B ACKGROUND
On March 17, 2026, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to amend his
complaint. Doc. 22. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of
April 7, 2026, and warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply likely would
result in dismissal. Id. Plaintiff did not comply with that order.
On April 20, 2026, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show cause
why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the order
of March 17, 2026. Doc. 23. 	The undersigned imposed a compliance
Case 5:25-cv-00135-AW-MJF Document 24 Filed 05/14/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
deadline of May 4, 2026, and warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply
likely would result in dismissal. Id. Plaintiff has not complied with that
order.
DISCUSSION
“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.R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962). Plaintiff has failed to comply with two court
orders. Plaintiff has offered no excuse for his failures and, consequently,
has not shown good cause. Accordingly, dismissal of this civil action is
appropriate.
CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with two court orders and failed
to prosecute this action the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS
that the District Court:
Case 5:25-cv-00135-AW-MJF Document 24 Filed 05/14/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
1. 	DISMISS this action without prejudice.
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 14th day of May 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 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. 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-00135-AW-MJF Document 24 Filed 05/14/26 Page 3 of 3