LORUSSO v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
MICHAEL LORUSSO,
Petitioner,
v. 	Case No. 1:25-cv-271-MCR/MJF
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
/
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.
B ACKGROUND
On September 12, 2025, this court ordered Petitioner to submit a
properly completed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc.
11. The undersigned explained to Petitioner that Petitioner must submit
a 	fully-completed 	application 	to 	proceed 	in 	forma 	pauperis, 	which
includes 	a 	printout 	of 	the 	transactions 	for 	the 	6-month 	period
immediately preceding the filing of the petition. Doc. 11 at 2.
Case 1:25-cv-00271-MCR-MJF Document 16 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
On September 30, 2025, Petitioner submitted a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Doc 13. However, despite the undersigned’s
clear instructions, Petitioner’s motion was incomplete.
Accordingly, on October 8, 2025, the undersigned denied the motion
to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered Petitioner to show cause for his
failure to submit a properly completed motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and failure to comply with a court order. Doc. 15. The
undersigned also ordered Petitioner to pay the filing fee or submit a
properly completed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. The
undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of November 7, 2025, and
warned Petitioner that the failure to comply likely would result in
dismissal of this civil action. Petitioner has not complied with that order.
D ISCUSSION
“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
Case 1:25-cv-00271-MCR-MJF Document 16 Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962). Petitioner has failed to comply with two
court orders. 	Petitioner has offered no excuse 	for his failures and,
consequently, has not shown good cause. Accordingly, dismissal of this
civil action is appropriate.
CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with 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 21st day of November, 2025.
/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
Case 1:25-cv-00271-MCR-MJF Document 16 Filed 11/21/25 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
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 1:25-cv-00271-MCR-MJF Document 16 Filed 11/21/25 Page 4 of 4