Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00983/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00983-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

CARLOS CAREY, #245 045, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-983-WKW 

) [WO] 

LT. RILEY, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on September 25, 2014. On October 

3, 2014, the court directed Defendants to file an answer and written report addressing 

Plaintiff’s claims for relief. In compliance with the court’s order, Defendants submitted 

an answer and written report on November 11, 2014, which contained relevant 

evidentiary materials refuting the allegations in the complaint. Doc. Nos. 12, 13. Upon 

review of this report, the court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a response to 

Defendants’ answer and written report. Doc. No. 14. The order advised Plaintiff that his 

failure to respond to the report would be treated by the court “as an abandonment of the 

claims set forth in the complaint and as a failure to prosecute this action.” Id. at 1. The 

order “specifically cautioned [Plaintiff] that [his failure] to file a response in compliance 

with the directives of this order” would result in the dismissal of this civil action. Id. 

The court granted Plaintiff’s two requests for additional time to respond to 

Defendants’ written report, making the time allotted Plaintiff for filing a response in 

compliance with the directives of the court’s November 18, 2014, expire on January 20, 

Case 2:14-cv-00983-WKW-WC Document 19 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

2105. See Doc. Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. As of the present date, Plaintiff has failed to file 

a response in opposition to Defendant’s written report. The court, therefore, concludes 

this case should be dismissed. 

The court has reviewed the file to determine whether a drastic measure less than 

dismissal is appropriate. After such review, dismissal is the proper course of action. 

Plaintiff is an indigent individual. The imposition of monetary or other punitive 

sanctions against him would be ineffectual. Plaintiff’s inaction in the face of Defendant’s 

report and evidentiary materials refuting the claims raised suggests he does not seek to 

proceed with this case. It, therefore, appears that any additional effort by this court to 

secure his compliance would be unavailing. Consequently, the court concludes that 

Plaintiff’s abandonment of his claims and his failure to comply with an order of this court 

warrant dismissal. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (As a general 

rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is 

not an abuse of discretion.); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232 F. App’x 924 (11th Cir. 2007) 

(affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate’s § 1983 action for failure to 

file an amendment to complaint in compliance with court’s prior order directing 

amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply). 

For the above stated reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate 

Judge that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. It is further 

 It is further 

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

Recommendation on or before August 3, 2015. Any objections filed must specifically 

Case 2:14-cv-00983-WKW-WC Document 19 Filed 07/20/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party is 

objecting. 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 

(5th Cir. 1982); see Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see 

also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (adopting as 

binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to 

the close of business on September 30, 1981). 

Done this 20th day of July, 2015. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:14-cv-00983-WKW-WC Document 19 Filed 07/20/15 Page 3 of 3