Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_09-cv-00624/USCOURTS-almd-3_09-cv-00624-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:2601 Family and Medical Leave Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

ESTATE OF SANDRELL HORN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACT. NO. 3:09cv624-MHT

)

RUSSELL COUNTY BOARD )

OF EDUCATION, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The sole remaining plaintiff in this case is the Estate of Sandrell Horn. The Estate can

not represent itself, and cannot proceed without a lawyer. The administrator of the Estate,

Kenneth Horn, is not a lawyer and, as a non-lawyer, cannot represent the Estate. On April

7, 2011, the court ordered the Estate to secure representation by a licensed attorney

authorized to practice in this court, and directed counsel to file a notice of appearance on or

before June 6, 2011. On June 13, 2011, the administrator of the Estate filed a motion for an

extension of time to secure counsel (doc. # 132). On June 17, 2011, the court granted the

administrator an extension of time to secure counsel but specifically cautioned the

administrator that if counsel did not a notice of appearance, the court would recommend that

this case be dismissed. (Doc. # 134).

To date, no attorney has filed a notice of appearance. Consequently, the court

concludes that this case is due to be dismissed without prejudice. 

 

Case 3:09-cv-00624-MHT-CSC Document 135 Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 2
CONCLUSION

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

be dismissed without prejudice. It is further

ORDERED that on or before July 28, 2011, the parties may file objections to the 

Recommendation. Any objection must specifically identify the findings in the 

Recommendation objected to. 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 in the Recommendation

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 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d th

1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth th

Circuit issued prior to September 30, 1981.

Done this 14 day of July, 2011. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 3:09-cv-00624-MHT-CSC Document 135 Filed 07/14/11 Page 2 of 2