Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_12-cv-00078/USCOURTS-almd-1_12-cv-00078-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT EARL PHILLIPS, #278 325, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-78-WHA

 ) [WO]

DOUGLAS VALESKA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On May 7, 2012 the court entered an order directing Plaintiff to file a supplement to 

his complaint as set forth therein. (See Doc. No. 9.) When the time for complying with the

court’s May 7 order passed without any response from Plaintiff, the court entered an order

on July 11, 2012 directing Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed

for his failures to comply with the orders of the court and to prosecute this action. (Doc. No.

11.) The requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has filed nothing in response to the orders

of the court. Consequently, the court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate for

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

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

be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action and comply

with the orders of this court.

It is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff mayfile anyobjections to the Recommendation on or before

August 27, 2012. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Case 1:12-cv-00078-WHA-CSC Document 13 Filed 08/13/12 Page 1 of 2
Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff 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

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

September 30, 1981.

Done this 13 day of August, 2012. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:12-cv-00078-WHA-CSC Document 13 Filed 08/13/12 Page 2 of 2