GRAYBILL et al v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES et al

Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
ROLAND GRAYBILL and
BRITTANY GRUMBLING,
Plaintiffs,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-280-MW-MJF
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et
al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Because Plaintiffs failed to comply with two court orders and failed
to prosecute this action, the District Court should dismiss this action
without prejudice.
B ACKGROUND
On October 17, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint on the court approved form. Doc. 4. The undersigned
imposed a compliance deadline of November 17, 2025, and warned
Plaintiffs that the failure to comply with the order likely would result in
dismissal of this action. Plaintiffs did not comply with that order.
Case 5:25-cv-00280-MW-MJF Document 6 Filed 12/30/25 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
On December 1, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiffs to explain
and show cause for their failure to comply with the undersigned’s order
of October 17, 2025. Doc. 5. The undersigned imposed a deadline of
December 15, 2025, to comply and again warned Plaintiffs that the
failure to comply with the order likely would result in dismissal of this
action. As of the date of this report and recommendation, Plaintiffs have
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). Plaintiffs have failed to comply with two
court orders. Plaintiff have offered no excuse for their failures and,
consequently, has not shown good cause. Accordingly, dismissal of this
civil action is appropriate.
Case 5:25-cv-00280-MW-MJF Document 6 Filed 12/30/25 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
C ONCLUSION
Because Plaintiffs 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 30th 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 5:25-cv-00280-MW-MJF Document 6 Filed 12/30/25 Page 3 of 3