MORGAN v. GRACEVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY et al

Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
KENTARKUIS JAMEL
MORGAN,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:26-cv-45-AW/MJF
GRACEVILLE CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with two court orders and failed
to prosecute this action, the District Court should dismiss this action
without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
On February 26, 2026, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to submit
a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee.
Doc. 6. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of March 30,
2026, and warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the order likely
would result in dismissal of this action. Plaintiff did not comply with that
order.
Case 5:26-cv-00045-AW-MJF Document 8 Filed 05/13/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
On April 15, 2026, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to explain and
show cause for his failure to comply with the undersigned’s February 26,
2026, order. Doc. 7. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of
April 29, 2026, 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.
DISCUSSION
“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). Plaintiff has failed to comply with two court
orders and has failed to prosecute this action. Plaintiff has offered no
excuse for his failures and, consequently, has not shown good cause.
Accordingly, dismissal of this civil action is appropriate.
Case 5:26-cv-00045-AW-MJF Document 8 Filed 05/13/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with two 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 13th Day of May 2026.
/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 5:26-cv-00045-AW-MJF Document 8 Filed 05/13/26 Page 3 of 3