Case: 15-11751 Date Filed: 10/07/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11751
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-00231-JRH-BKE
WARREN ADAM TAYLOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant.
versus
AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY
CONSOLIDATED COMMISSIONERS, et al.,
Defendants,
J. PATRICK CLAIBORNE,
Third Party Defendant,
GWENDOLYN B. TAYLOR,
Third Party Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(October 7, 2015)
Case: 15-11751 Date Filed: 10/07/2015 Page: 2 of 3
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Warren Taylor appeals pro se the dismissal of his complaint about violations
of his civil rights, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
Act, id. § 12101, et seq., by his former wife, Gwendolyn Taylor; her attorney, J.
Patrick Claiborne; and officials of Augusta-Richmond County. The district court
dismissed Taylor’s complaint for failure to prosecute. We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Taylor’s
complaint, even if the ruling was tantamount to a dismissal with prejudice. Taylor
filed three requests for a judgment of default, despite being told repeatedly by the
district court that none of the defendants were in default. Taylor failed to comply
with the order of the district court to respond to a motion to dismiss his complaint,
even after the district court sua sponte granted Taylor an extension of time. See
Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 483 (11th Cir. 2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Rather than respond to the motion to dismiss, Taylor objected to the denial of his
request for a judgment of default and asked the district court to vacate and remand
his action to this Court. And Taylor ignored the warnings of the district court that,
pursuant to a local rule, S.D. Ga. Local R.41.1, it would dismiss his complaint for
failure to prosecute if he willfully disobeyed or ignored the order to respond. See
2
Case: 15-11751 Date Filed: 10/07/2015 Page: 3 of 3
Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). Dismissal was an
appropriate remedy based on Taylor’s delay and willful conduct.
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Taylor’s complaint.
3