LAMPKIN v. DELTA AIR LINES INC

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
TINA LAMPKIN,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 4:25cv495-MW-MAF
DELTA AIR LINES, INC.,
Defendant.
_________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and with in forma pauperis status, was
directed to file a third amended complaint. ECF No. 9. That Order was
entered after previously explaining the deficiencies of both Plaintiff’s
original complaint, ECF No. 1, the first amended complaint, ECF No. 5, and
the second amended complaint, ECF No. 8. 	See ECF Nos. 4, 7, and 9.
The most recent Order reminded Plaintiff to review it thoroughly “and
comply with the guidance provided as the number of opportunities to
submit a viable complaint are not unlimited.” ECF No. 9. One issue in
particular was whether Plaintiff filed an EEOC charge of discrimination as
required and received the Notice of Right to Sue. 	Id. 	Plaintiff was advised
Case 4:25-cv-00495-MW-MAF Document 10 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
that if she had not received a “Notice of Right to Sue” from the EEOC, she
“should voluntarily dismiss this case until such time as she could properly
proceed.” 	Id. 	Plaintiff’s deadline to file the third amended complaint was
March 19, 2026. 	Id.
As of this date , Plaintiff has neither filed a “third amended complaint”
or a notice of voluntary dismissal. It, thus, appears that Plaintiff has
abandoned this litigation, despite the warning that if Plaintiff failed to
comply with the Order, a recommendation of dismissal would be entered.
Id.
“A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own
docket, may dismiss a case sua sponte” when a Plaintiff “fails to prosecute
or” otherwise comply with a court order. 	See Ciosek v. Ashley, No.
3:13cv147-RV-CJK, 2015 WL 2137521, at *2 (N.D. Fla. May 7, 2015); see
also Smith v. Bruster, 424 F. App’x 912, 915 (11th Cir. 2011). The Court
has inherent power “to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution” as
courts must necessarily have authority “to manage their own affairs . . . . ”
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 1389, 8 L. Ed.
2d 734 (1962) (quoted in Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d
1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)); see also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1. Furthermore,
Case No. 4:25cv495-MW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00495-MW-MAF Document 10 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals 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.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). Here,
Plaintiff was forewarned and did not respond to a Court Order. Because
Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case, dismissal is appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION
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 March 23, 2026.
S/ 	Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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). 	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.
Case No. 4:25cv495-MW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00495-MW-MAF Document 10 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 3