Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00033/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00033-0/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 

JOSEPH LEE LEWIS, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-33-WKW 

 ) [WO] 

CAPTAIN MIKE MULL, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Coosa County Jail in Rockford, Alabama, filed 

this complaint on January 15, 2015. On January 22, 2015, 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 answers and written reports on March 5, 2015, which 

contained relevant evidentiary materials refuting the allegations in the complaint. Doc. Nos. 6, 9. 

Upon review of these reports, the court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a response to 

Defendants’ answers and written reports. Doc. No. 11. The order advised Plaintiff that his 

failure to respond to the reports 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 2. 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 time allotted Plaintiff for filing a response in compliance with the directives of the 

court’s March 9, 2015, order expired on March 30, 2015. As of the present date, Plaintiff has 

failed to file a response in opposition to Defendants’ written reports. The court, therefore, 

concludes this case should be dismissed. 

Case 2:15-cv-00033-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 06/17/15 Page 1 of 3
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. Imposing monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be 

ineffectual. Plaintiff’s inaction in the face of Defendants’ reports 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 Fed.Appx. 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 this 

case be DISMISSED without prejudice. It is further 

 It is further 

 ORDERED that on or before July 1, 2015, the parties may file an objection to the 

Recommendation. Any objection 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 this Recommendation is not 

a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable. 

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in the 

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

Case 2:15-cv-00033-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 06/17/15 Page 2 of 3
issues covered in the report and shall bar a 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 the 17th day of June, 2015. 

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

 CHARLES S. COODY 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-00033-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 06/17/15 Page 3 of 3