FLOOD v. BALL et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ANDREW FLOOD,
)
Plaintiff 	)
v. 	) 	1:24-cv-00239-SDN
)
CHARLES BALL, et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
RECOMMENDED DECISION TO DISMISS
BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
On July 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint and on August 19, 2024, a Motion to
Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs. (Complaint, ECF No. 1; Motion, ECF No.
8.) The Court granted the motion on September 4, 2024. (Order, ECF No. 10.) In its order,
the Court ordered Plaintiff to notify the Court by September 25, 2024, of his intent to
proceed with this action and to acknowledge in his notice that he understands his obligation
to pay the complete filing fee as the requisite funds become available to him. Through the
order, the Court informed Plaintiff that a failure to comply with the order could result in the
dismissal of the complaint.
When Plaintiff failed to file a notice of intent as directed, on October 4, 2024, the
Court issued an Order to Show Cause. (Order, ECF No. 11.) In the Show Cause Order, the
Court established October 18, 2024, as the date by which Plaintiff was to show cause in
writing as to why he failed to comply with the Court’s order requiring that he notify the
Court of his intent to proceed with this action. The Court advised Plaintiff that if he failed to
show cause, his complaint could be dismissed.
Case 1:24-cv-00239-SDN Document 12 Filed 10/29/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Because Plaintiff has not responded to the Order to Show Cause and has not notified
the Court of his intent to proceed, I recommend the Court dismiss the matter.
D ISCUSSION
“A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own docket, may dismiss
a case sua sponte for any of the reasons prescribed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” 	Cintron-
Lorenzo v. Dep’t de Asumtos del Consumidor, 312 F.3d 522, 526 (1st Cir. 2002) (citing Link
v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 – 31 (1962)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)
authorizes the Court to dismiss an action for a party’s failure to prosecute and failure to
comply with the Court’s orders. Here, Plaintiff has (a) failed to comply with the Court’s
September 4, 2024, Order that required Plaintiff to notify the Court of Plaintiff’s intent to
proceed, and (b) failed to show cause in accordance with the Court’s Order to Show Cause.
Plaintiff has not only failed to comply with two of the Court’s orders, but insofar as he has
not notified the Court of his intent to proceed, Plaintiff has also failed to prosecute his claim.
Dismissal, therefore, is warranted.
C ONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint
without prejudice.1
NOTICE
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate
judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district
1 If Plaintiff notifies the Court of his intent to proceed within the fourteen-day period for objections to this
Recommended Decision, I will withdraw the Recommended Decision.
Case 1:24-cv-00239-SDN Document 12 Filed 10/29/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen (14)
days of being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to
de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court’s order.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 29th day of October, 2024.
Case 1:24-cv-00239-SDN Document 12 Filed 10/29/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>