MARTIN v. 1650 PHILLIPS RD FL OWNERS LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
LEONARD HENRY MARTIN, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 4:25-cv-459-AW-MAF
1650 PHILLIPS ROAD, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights
complaint alleging medical negligence against his mother’s nursing home
and three other companies. ECF No. 1. There were several deficiencies with
Plaintiff’s complaint, but the bigger issue was that he could not proceed pro
se because he brought the lawsuit on behalf of his mother, who sadly passed
away. See ECF No. 4.
On December 8, 2025, the Court explained to Plaintiff the issues with
his complaint and his inability, as a non-lawyer, to proceed pro se on behalf
of his mother’s estate. Id. at 2-4. The Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to obtain
counsel, demonstrate that Plaintiff had been appointed personal
representative of his mother’s estate, and file an amended complaint and
notice of appearance of counsel. Id. at 5-6. Alternatively, Plaintiff could file a
notice of voluntary dismissal. Id. at 6. Plaintiff was warned that failure to
Case 4:25-cv-00459-AW-MAF Document 5 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
4:25-cv-459-AW-MAF
comply with the Court’s Order would result in a recommendation of dismissal.
The January 9, 2026 deadline has passed and nothing has been received
from Plaintiff. Because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case and failed
to comply with a court order, dismissal is appropriate
A trial court has inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure
to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1962). Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for
failure to obey a court order. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 838 (11th
Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989). Furthermore, the Eleventh
Circuit has noted that “[w]hile dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, dismissal
upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been
forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.” Id. It is within this Court’s
discretion and “inherent authority” to dismiss a case for failing to comply with
a court order. Smith v. Bruster, 424 F. App’x 912, 915 (11th Cir. 2011).
For the reasons stated above, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that
this case be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with
a court order.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida on January 26, 2026.
s/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-00459-AW-MAF Document 5 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
4:25-cv-459-AW-MAF
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific
written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the objections shall be served upon
all other parties. A party may respond to another party’s objections
within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may appear on the
electronic docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not
control. If a party fails to object to the Magistrate Judge’s findings or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this
Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge
on appeal the District Court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual
and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Case 4:25-cv-00459-AW-MAF Document 5 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 3