MITCHELL v. BLACK WATER PRISON et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
BRANDYN E. MITCHELL,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No.: 3:25cv2342/LAC/ZCB
BLACKWATER PRISON, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action by filing a civil
rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	(Doc. 1). 	On November 20,
2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to do two things within twenty-one
days: (1) file an amended complaint on the Court-approved form, and (2)
either pay the filing fee of $405.00 or file a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP). (Doc. 5). 	The Court directed the Clerk of Court to send
Plaintiff the necessary forms and notified Plaintiff that failure to comply
with the Court’s order would result in a recommendation of dismissal of
the case. (Id.).
The twenty-one-day deadline passed, and Plaintiff had not done
what he was instructed to do. 	Therefore, on December 19, 2025, the
Case 3:25-cv-02342-LC-ZCB Document 7 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, within fourteen days, why the case
should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court.
(Doc. 6). 	The Court again notified Plaintiff that failure to comply with
the Court’s order would result in a recommendation of dismissal of the
case. (Id.).
The deadline for compliance with the show cause order has passed,
and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, paid the filing fee, filed
an 	IFP 	motion, 	or 	otherwise 	responded. 	Dismissal 	is, 	therefore,
warranted. 	See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (authorizing dismissal when “a
party fails to comply with an applicable rule or court order”); see also
Frith v. Curry, 812 F. App’x 933, 935 (11th Cir. 2020) (affirming dismissal
where the plaintiff failed to pay the initial partial filing fee and failed to
respond to a magistrate judge’s order to show cause as to why the filing
fee had not been paid); Duong Thanh Ho v. Costello, 757 F. App’x 912,
914-15 (11th Cir. 2018) (affirming dismissal where pro se plaintiff failed
to file an amended complaint as directed).
Case 3:25-cv-02342-LC-ZCB Document 7 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be
DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with
an order of the Court.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 13th day of January 2026.
/s/ Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
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 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. Rule 3-1; 28
U.S.C. § 636.
Case 3:25-cv-02342-LC-ZCB Document 7 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 3