ALLAN KORNBLUM, Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff was released from custody and advised the Court of his free-world address on March 29, 2006. (Doc. 18). By Order dated April 6, 2006, the Court ruled on one of Plaintiff's motions and advised him that it had his motion for preliminary injunction before it (doc. 10), but needed him to clarify the defendants and his claims in a second amended complaint before it could determine the motion for injunctive relief. (Doc. 20). Plaintiff had filed an amended complaint earlier naming different defendants from the ones complained about in his motion for injunctive relief. (See Doc. 14). Plaintiff was given through April 28, 2006, to file the second amended complaint. (Doc. 20). On July 1, 2006, when no amended complaint was filed, an Order to Show Cause was mailed to Plaintiff advising him that if no response to the order was received by June 16, 2006, it would be recommended that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 22). As of this date, there has been no response to the show cause order or any other communication from Plaintiff about the prosecution of this case.
A trial court has inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash Railroad, 370 U.S. 626, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed2d 734 (1962). Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) also authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order. Plaintiff has failed to comply with two orders of this Court directing that he file an amended complaint (docs. 20 and 22) and has not otherwise prosecuted his lawsuit. Consequently, this case should be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED with prejudice.
IN CHAMBERS at Gainesville, Florida.
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 10 days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.