Case: 17-15235 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-15235
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:17-cv-61301-KMM
JASON T. DEATON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 16, 2018)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-15235 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Page: 2 of 3
Jason Deaton, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the District
Court’s dismissal of his complaint for failing to comply with a court order
regarding the timely filing of a joint scheduling report and failing to request an
extension. On appeal, Deaton does not address the reason for the dismissal of his
complaint. Rather, he contends that it was “obvious” from the title of his
complaint that he was requesting proof of subject matter jurisdiction of his state
criminal prosecution under the District Court’s federal question jurisdiction.
The decision to dismiss for want of prosecution lies within the trial court’s
discretion and can be reversed only for an abuse of discretion. McKelvey v. AT&T
Techs., Inc., 789 F.2d 1518, 1520 (11th Cir. 1986). The abuse-of-discretion
standard of review requires us to affirm unless we find that the district court made
a clear error of judgment or applied the wrong legal standard. Rance v. Rocksolid
Granit USA, Inc., 583 F.3d 1284, 1286 (11th Cir. 2009).
Pro se pleadings are liberally construed, but issues not briefed on appeal are
nonetheless deemed abandoned. Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir.
2008); Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). If a plaintiff fails
to comply with a court order, the district court may sua sponte dismiss the case
based on either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) or its inherent power to
manage the docket. Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337
(11th Cir. 2005). Dismissal upon disregard of an order—especially where, as here,
2
Case: 17-15235 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Page: 3 of 3
the litigant has been forewarned—is generally not an abuse of discretion. Moon v.
Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). Moreover, such a dismissal without
prejudice generally does not constitute an abuse of discretion because the affected
party may simply re-file. See Dynes v. Army Air Force Exch. Serv., 720 F.2d
1495, 1499 (11th Cir. 1983).
Here, Deaton has abandoned any challenge to the District Court’s dismissal
of his claim for failure to follow its order requiring the filing of a joint scheduling
report. Even liberally construed, Deaton’s brief makes no argument about his
failure to file a joint scheduling report or request an extension. Regardless, the
District Court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Deaton’s complaint for
failure to follow a court order because Deaton was forewarned and the dismissal
was without prejudice.
AFFIRMED.
3
Jason T. Deaton v. State of Florida
Combined Opinion