HARGROVE v. CAPELA 6022 (2020)

Daniel Hargrove appeals pro se the dismissal without prejudice of his complaint for failure to comply with an order to submit an amended application to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay a filing fee. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. Hargrove disregarded a warning that his failure to comply with the order would result in the dismissal of his complaint, and he failed to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss. On appeal, Hargrove has abandoned any challenge to the dismissal by failing to identify an error by the district court. See Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 1316, 1318–19 (11th Cir. 2012). Instead, he demands that we enter judgment in his favor. Because Hargrove fails to explain how the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed his complaint without prejudice, see Dynes v. Army Air Force Exch. Serv., 720 F.2d 1495, 1499 (11th Cir. 1983), we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM: