MCGHEE v. BANK OF AMERICA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
WILLIAM MCGHEE,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 4:25-cv-529-AW-MAF
BANK OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
____________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil complaint against Bank of
America alleging violations of numerous federal financial statutes. ECF No.
1. Plaintiff’s complaint did not comply with the Local Rules or the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and he was given the opportunity to file an
amended complaint correcting the issues. ECF No. 4. His deadline for doing
so was February 17, 2026. Id. The deadline passed five weeks ago and
nothing has been received from Plaintiff. No mail was returned. Dismissal is
warranted.
A trial court has inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure
to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1962). Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for
failure to obey a court order. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 838 (11th
Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989). Furthermore, the Eleventh
Case 4:25-cv-00529-AW-MAF Document 5 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
4:25-cv-529-AW-MAF
Circuit 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.” Id. It is within this Court’s
discretion and “inherent authority” to dismiss a case for failing to comply with
a court order. Smith v. Bruster, 424 F. App’x 912, 915 (11th Cir. 2011).
Here, Plaintiff’s original complaint failed to comply with the Local Rules.
Plaintiff’s handwriting was not legible in many places; he failed to explain
how Defendant violated any of the statutes listed; and failed to explain the
facts of the case. He was given an opportunity to file a sufficient amended
complaint. As of this date, Plaintiff has failed to file anything more. It appears
Plaintiff has abandoned this case. Because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute
this case and failed to comply with a court order, dismissal is appropriate.
For the reasons stated above, 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
Case 4:25-cv-00529-AW-MAF Document 5 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
4:25-cv-529-AW-MAF
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). A copy of the objections shall be served upon
all other parties. A party may respond to another party’s objections
within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. 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(b)(1)(C).
Case 4:25-cv-00529-AW-MAF Document 5 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 3