Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00215/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00215-1/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 ______________________________

BRUCE HENRY, #113 280 *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:09-CV-215-TMH

 (WO)

ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS *

& PAROLES,

*

Defendant.

 __________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

On April 28, 2009 the court directed Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not

be dismissed for his failure to forward to the Clerk an initial partial filing fee in the amount

of $6.66. (Doc. No. 3.) The order informed Plaintiff to advise the court whether he authorized

prison officials to withdraw the funds from his prison account for payment of the initial

partial filing fee, whether he simply had chosen not to submit the filing fee, or whether he

was unable to comply at this time with the order directing payment of the initial partial filing

fee. (Id.) Plaintiff was also cautioned that his failure to comply with the April 28 order

would result in a Recommendation that his complaint be dismissed. (Id.)

The requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has not provided the court with the initial

partial filing fee nor has he responded to the court’s April 28, 2009 order to show cause.

Case 2:09-cv-00215-TMH-WC Document 5 Filed 05/18/09 Page 1 of 3
2

Consequently, the court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate for Plaintiff’s

failures to comply with the orders of the court and to prosecute this action.

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

be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to comply with the orders of this

court and to prosecute this action. 

 It is further

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

Recommendation on or before June 1, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically identify

the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party object. 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 2:09-cv-00215-TMH-WC Document 5 Filed 05/18/09 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 18th day of May 2009. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00215-TMH-WC Document 5 Filed 05/18/09 Page 3 of 3