MCCOY v. CLARK

Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
DEVONTE J. MCCOY,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-201-MW-MJF
BRANTLEY SCOTT CLARK,
JR.,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with two court orders, failed to
pay the filing fee, and failed to prosecute this action, the District Court
should dismiss this action without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
On August 12, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint on the court-approved form accompanied by payment
of $405 or a properly-completed motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Doc. 4. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of
September 11, 2025, and warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with
Case 5:25-cv-00201-MW-MJF Document 7 Filed 10/28/25 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
the order likely would result in dismissal of this action. Plaintiff did not
comply with that order.
On September 30, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show
cause for his failure to comply with the undersigned’s order of August 12,
2025. Doc. 6. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of October
14, 2025 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). Furthermore, a district court may dismiss
a civil action where a plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee. Wilson v. Sargent,
313 F.3d 1315, 1320–21 (11th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff has failed to comply
Case 5:25-cv-00201-MW-MJF Document 7 Filed 10/28/25 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
with two court orders. Plaintiff has offered no excuse for his failures and,
consequently, has not shown good cause.
CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with court orders, failed to pay
the 	filing 	fee, 	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 28th 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 N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B), 	(C). 	Objections 	to 	this 	report 	and
recommendation must be filed within fourteen days.
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-00201-MW-MJF Document 7 Filed 10/28/25 Page 3 of 3