AITKEN v. QUINN et al

Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
STEVEN M. AITKEN,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:25cv2156-LC-HTC
WARDEN R. QUINN, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Steven M. Aitken, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights
complaint arising out of the conditions of his confinement at Santa Rosa Correctional
Institute.1 Doc. 1. For the reasons set forth below, this case should be dismissed for
failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with orders of the Court.
On November 4, 2025, the Court directed Aitken to file a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis and an amended complaint. Doc. 5. The Court advised him that
failing to follow the Court’s Order could result in a recommendation that this case
be dismissed. Id. After Aitken did not respond, the Court issued a show cause order
on December 4, 2025, requiring him to show cause or comply with the November 4
1 Plaintiff initially filed the case in the Middle District of Florida and that court transferred the
case to this District. Docs. 2 & 3.
Case 3:25-cv-02156-LC-HTC Document 7 Filed 12/31/25 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
Case No. 3:25cv2156-LC-HTC
order by December 18, 2025. Doc. 6. Aitken has not responded in any way to the
November 4 and December 4 orders, and the time for doing so has passed.
Based on the foregoing, dismissal of this case is appropriate. 	See Brown v.
Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (“The court may
dismiss an action sua sponte under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)] for
failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”) (citations omitted); Moon v.
Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (“[D]ismissal upon disregard of an
order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of
discretion.”) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:
1. 	That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure
to prosecute and to comply with Court orders.
2. 	That the clerk close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 31 st day of December, 2025.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-02156-LC-HTC Document 7 Filed 12/31/25 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
Case No. 3:25cv2156-LC-HTC
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
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. An objecting party must serve a copy of its objections upon
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 the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 3:25-cv-02156-LC-HTC Document 7 Filed 12/31/25 Page 3 of 3