Keeton v. Bullard et al (INMATE 4) (CONSENT), No. 3:2023cv00461 - Document 26 (M.D. Ala. 2024)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 25 ) entered March 7, 2024 is WITHDRAWN. Signed by Magistrate Judge Chad W. Bryan on 3/29/2024. (See Order for Further Details) c/s)) (LAB)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Keeton v. Bullard et al (INMATE 4) (CONSENT) Doc. 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION RAYMOND MITCHELL KEETON, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER BULLARD, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:23-cv-461-CWB MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 25) entered March 7, 2024 is WITHDRAWN. Moreover, with the parties consenting to having all proceedings conducted by a Magistrate Judge, and with referral being made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is now further ORDERED as set forth below. Raymond Mitchell Keeton (“Plaintiff”), acting pro se, filed this action to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for conduct allegedly occurring at the Lee County Detention Center. (Doc. 1). Defendants subsequently filed a Special Report, which was accompanied by various evidentiary materials, in opposition to Plaintiff’s claims. (Docs. 16 & 17). By Order entered December 21, 2023, the court directed Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ arguments and materials by January 18, 2024. (Doc. 18). And Plaintiff was cautioned that “his wholesale failure to file a response will result in a recommendation that the lawsuit be dismissed.” (Id.). At Plaintiff’s request, the court extended the deadline through February 20, 2024 (Docs. 23 & 24); nonetheless, Plaintiff failed to submit a response or take other action. 1 Dockets.Justia.com The authority of courts to impose sanctions for failure to prosecute or obey an order is longstanding and acknowledged by Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962). Such authority “is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” Id. It further empowers courts “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Id. at 630-31. See also Saint Vil v. Perimeter Mortg. Funding Corp., 715 F. App’x 912, 915 (11th Cir. 2017). Here, the court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply or otherwise respond constitutes a clear record of delay and/or willful contempt; and the court further finds that any lesser sanction than dismissal would not be appropriate under the circumstances, i.e., where Plaintiff has failed to take action despite having been afforded additional time and despite the warning about a potential dismissal. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (noting that “dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion”) (citations omitted). Accordingly, this action is due to be dismissed without prejudice. A final judgment will be entered separately. DONE this the 29th day of March 2024. CHAD W. BRYAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
