govinfo:USCOURTS-flsd-1_25-cv-23629-1

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
CASE NO. 1:25-cv-23629-LEIBOWITZ/LOUIS 
 
 
WALTER WAYNE BROWN JR., 
 
               Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
T. BRUCE BELL, et al. , 
 
               Defendants. 
_____________________________/ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
 
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate 
Judge Lauren F. Louis [ECF No. 14] (the “R&R”), filed on May 4, 2026, recommending this case be 
dismissed without prejudice.  [Id. at 1, 2].  Judge Louis recommends dismissing this action because pro 
se Plaintiff failed to either pay the filing fee, or move to proceed as a pauper , despite being twice 
ordered to do so.  [See generally, id.; see also ECF Nos. 6, 11].  Plaintiff did not file a timely objection to 
the R&R within the objection period.  Upon review of the R&R, the Amended Complaint, relevant 
portions of the record, and the governing law, the undesigned AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Report 
and Recommendation for the reasons discussed below. 
STANDARD OF REVIEW 
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, the district court “shall make a de novo 
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to 
which objection is made.”  28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).  “Parties filing objections to a magistrate’s report 
and recommendation must specifically identify those findings objected to.  Frivolous, conclusive, or 
general objections need not be considered by the district court.”  United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 
Case 1:25-cv-23629-DSL   Document 17   Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2026   Page 1 of 4
2 
 
1361 (11th  Cir. 2009) (quoting Marsden v. Moore , 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11 th Cir. 1988)) (internal 
quotation marks omitted).  Absent objection, the district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 
or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate [judge],” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 
and “need only satisfy itse lf that there is no clear error on the face of the record” to accept the 
recommendation.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment, subdivision (b). 
DISCUSSION 
By statute, the Clerk of Court must require parties instituting a civil action to pay a filing fee.  
28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).  A fee exception exists for litigants who make the requisite showing of poverty.  
Under the In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) statute, 
any court of the United States may authorize the commencement . . . of any suit, action 
or proceeding, civil or criminal, . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, 
by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets su ch 
prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.  
 
28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1).  “Despite the statute’s use of the phrase ‘prisoner possesses,’ the affidavit 
requirement applies to all persons requesting leave to proceed IFP.”  Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 
F.3d 1305, 1308 n.1 (11th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).   When a plaintiff fails to comply with the 
court’s orders to pay the filing fee  or move to proceed IFP, the proper standard for determining 
whether dismissal is warranted is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).  See Judkins v. Beech Aircraft 
Corp., 723 F.2d 818, 819 (11th Cir. 1984). 
 Plaintiff filed his Complaint on August 11, 2025.  [ECF No. 1].  The Complaint was dismissed 
on September 15, 2025, for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee or move to proceed as a pauper .  
[ECF No. 6].  On September 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint [ECF No. 8], which was 
dismissed on January 8, 2026, on the same grounds—failure to pay the filing fee or file an IFP Motion.  
Both Orders dismissing the complaints warned Plaintiff that if he failed to pay the filing fee or file an 
IFP Motion by the court -ordered deadlines, this case would be dismissed.  [ See ECF No. 6 at 1 –2; 
ECF No. 11 at 1–2].  Notwithstanding those warnings, Plaintiff has still not complied with the court’s 
Case 1:25-cv-23629-DSL   Document 17   Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2026   Page 2 of 4
3 
 
directives.  Accordingly, this case must be dismissed. 
This Court has the authority to prune cases from its dockets where parties have failed to 
prosecute their cases. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–32 (1962) 
(courts have the inherent authority to dismiss claims for lack of prosecution); Mingo v. Sugar Cane 
Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983) 
(per curiam); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (first 
citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); then citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th 
Cir. 1978)) (“The court may dismiss an action sua  sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or 
failure to obey a court order.”) .  “In addition to its power under Rule 41(b), a court also has the 
inherent ability to dismiss a claim in light of its authority to enforce its orders and provide for the 
efficient disposition of litigation.” Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 483 (11th Cir. 2006). “[A] dismissal 
without prejudice generally does not constitute an abuse of discretion because the affected party may 
simply re-file.”  See Johnson v. DuBose, 806 F. App’x 927, 928 (11th Cir. 2020). 
  This case has languished on the Court’s docket for almost ten months now.  And, despite 
two orders of the Court, Plaintiff has taken no action to comply.  Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff has 
failed to prosecute his claims and dismissal is warranted as recommended by Judge Louis. 
CONCLUSION 
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 
1.  The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 14] is AFFIRMED 
and ADOPTED and fully incorporated herein. 
 
2.  This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
 
3. The Clerk  is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 1:25-cv-23629-DSL   Document 17   Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2026   Page 3 of 4
4 
 
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on June 5, 2026. 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
cc:  Walter Wayne Brown, Jr., pro se 
 1915 Chalk Ridge Road 
 Vanceburg, KY 41179 
 
Case 1:25-cv-23629-DSL   Document 17   Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2026   Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight