Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_07-cv-00270/USCOURTS-almd-3_07-cv-00270-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 EASTERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

DANNY W. PICKARD, #256 041 *

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 3:07-CV-270-MHT

 (WO)

SGT. MOORE, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _______________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was filed by Plaintiff on March 28, 2009. On March 30,

2007 the court entered an order of procedure which instructed Plaintiff, among other things,

to inform the court of any change in his address. (Doc. No. 4.) The order further informed

Plaintiff that failure to comply with this specific directive would result in a Recommendation

that his case be dismissed. (Id.) 

It recently came to the court’s attention that Plaintiff is no longer residing at the most

recent service address he provided to the court. Consequently, the court entered an order on

July 2, 2009 directing Plaintiff to provide the court with his present address on or before July

16, 2009. (Doc. No. 33.) Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the court's

July 2 order would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. (Id.) On July 14,

2009 Plaintiff’s copy of the court’s July 2 order was returned to the court marked as

undeliverable. As it appears clear that Plaintiff is no longer residing at the most recent

Case 3:07-cv-00270-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 07/14/09 Page 1 of 3
2

address he provided to the court and that he has not provided this court with a new address

for service, the undersigned concludes that dismissal of the complaint at this juncture is

appropriate. 

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case

be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failures to prosecute this action properly and

to comply with the orders of this court. 

 It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the

Recommendation on or before July 27, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically identify

the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous,

conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are

advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not

appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain

error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein th

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of th

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the th

Case 3:07-cv-00270-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 07/14/09 Page 2 of 3
3

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done, this 14 day of July 2009. th

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00270-MHT-WC Document 34 Filed 07/14/09 Page 3 of 3