THOMAS v. BOND COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER et al

Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
MARCIA THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 4:25-cv-190-MW-MJF
BOND COMMUNITY HEALTH
CENTER, 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.
B ACKGROUND
Because Plaintiff’s complaint violated Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, on October 7, 2025, the undersigned ordered
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Doc. 8. The undersigned imposed
a compliance deadline of October 28, 2025, and warned Plaintiff that the
failure to comply with the order likely would result in dismissal of this
action. Plaintiff did not comply with that order.
Case 4:25-cv-00190-MW-MJF Document 10 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
On November 17, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show
cause for her failure to comply with the undersigned’s order of October 7,
2025. Doc. 9. The undersigned imposed a deadline of December 1, 2025,
to comply and again warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the
order likely would result in dismissal of this action. 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.R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962). Plaintiff has failed to comply with two court
orders. Plaintiff has offered no excuse for her failures and, consequently,
has not shown good cause. Accordingly, dismissal of this civil action is
appropriate.
Case 4:25-cv-00190-MW-MJF Document 10 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
C ONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with court orders and failed to
prosecute this action, 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 16th day of December, 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 	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 	(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 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-00190-MW-MJF Document 10 Filed 12/16/25 Page 3 of 3