Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00784/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00784-1/pdf.json

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

---

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GARY PADGETT, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 04-0784-WS-C

WILLIAM WHEAT, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed a complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 together with a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees. This action

was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

72.2(c)(4), and is now before the Court for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s

order and to prosecute his claims against defendants Jimmy Moss and Daisy Sleets. 

(Doc. 14)

In reviewing its file, the Court found that defendants Moss and Sleets had not

appeared in this action and that defendants advised in their special report that a person by

the name of Jimmy Moss had never been employed by Washington County or its

Sheriff’s Department and that Daisy Sleets died on December 16, 2004. (Doc. 12 at 4-5;

Ex. C). The defendants asked that these two unserved defendants be dismissed from this

Case 1:04-cv-00784-WS-C Document 17 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 4
2

action. (Id. at 5) Therefore, the Court entered an order on May 24, 2006 ordering

plaintiff to take whatever action he contemplated taking against these two defendants on

or before June 20, 2006. (Doc. 14) Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to take any

further action in regard to his claims against these defendants within the prescribed time,

his claims against defendants Moss and Sleets would be dismissed from this action for

failure to prosecute and to obey the Court’s order. Plaintiff has not taken any action

against these defendants. 

Accordingly, the undersigned finds that plaintiff has failed to obey the Court’s

order and has abandoned the prosecution of his claims against defendants Moss and

Sleets. Upon consideration of the alternatives are available to the Court, it is, therefore,

recommended that the claims against defendants Moss and Sleets be dismissed without

prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as no other

lesser sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962)(interpreting

Rule 41(b) not to restrict the court’s inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte an action for

lack of prosecution); Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 484 (11th Cir. 2006); World

Thrust Films, Inc. v. International Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454, 1456-57

(11th Cir. 1995); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir.

1989); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985); Jones v. Graham, 709

F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983); Hildebrand v. Honeywell, Inc., 622 F.2d 179, 181 (5th

Case 1:04-cv-00784-WS-C Document 17 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 4
1

The Eleventh Circuit in Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.

1981) (en banc), adopted as binding precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered

prior to October 1, 1981.

3

Cir. 1980).1 Accord Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (ruling that federal

courts’ inherent power to manage their own proceedings authorized the imposition of

attorney's fees and related expenses as a sanction); Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987

F.2d 1536, 1545-46 (11th Cir. 1993) (finding that the court’s inherent power to manage

actions before it permitted the imposition of fines), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 863 (1993).

The attached sheet contains important information regarding objections to this

Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 21st day of November, 2006.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00784-WS-C Document 17 Filed 11/21/06 Page 3 of 4
4

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION, AND

FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

l. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation, or anything in it, must, within

ten days of the date of service of this document, file specific written objections with the Clerk of

this Court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the district judge of anything in

the recommendation and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the Magistrate

Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988);

Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). The procedure for

challenging the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge is set out in more detail

in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a magistrate judge in a

dispositive matter, that is, a matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by

filing a “Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation” within

ten days after being served with a copy of the recommendation, unless a different

time is established by order. The statement of objection shall specify those

portions of the recommendation to which objection is made and the basis for the

objection. The objecting party shall submit to the district judge, at the time of

filing the objection, a brief setting forth the party’s arguments that the magistrate

judge’s recommendation should be reviewed de novo and a different disposition

made. It is insufficient to submit only a copy of the original brief submitted to the

magistrate judge, although a copy of the original brief may be submitted or

referred to and incorporated into the brief in support of the objection. Failure to

submit a brief in support of the objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection. 

A magistrate judge's recommendation cannot be appealed to a Court of Appeals; only the

district judge's order or judgment can be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable Where Proceedings Tape Recorded). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915 and FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b), the Magistrate Judge finds that the tapes and original records in

this case are adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to this

recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial

determination that transcription is necessary is required before the United States will pay the cost

of the transcript.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00784-WS-C Document 17 Filed 11/21/06 Page 4 of 4