Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00859/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00859-1/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JUNIOR RUSSELL, )

AIS #240688, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-CV-859-TMH

) [WO]

)

JAMES WILSON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause of action is pending before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint

filed by Junior Russell [“Russell”], a state inmate, on August 9, 2009. In his complaint,

Russell challenges actions taken against him during his confinement at the Elmore

Correctional Facility.

Pursuant to the orders of this court, the defendants filed a written report supported

by relevant evidentiary materials in which they addressed the claims for relief presented

byRussell. The report and evidentiarymaterialsrespond to the allegations presented in the

instant cause of action. Specifically, the documentsindicate that the defendants did not act

in violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The court thereafter issued an order

directing Russell to file a response to the written report. Order of January 25, 2010 -

Court Doc. No. 21. This order advised Russell that hisfailure to respond to the defendants’

written report would be treated by the court “as an abandonment of the claims set forth

Case 2:09-cv-00859-TMH-SRW Document 22 Filed 09/16/11 Page 1 of 3
in the complaint and as a failure to prosecute this action.” Id. at 1 (emphasis in

original). Additionally, the order “specifically cautioned [the plaintiff] that [hisfailure]

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 Russell for filing a response in

compliance with the aforementioned order expired in February of 2010. Id. As of the

present date, Russell has failed to file a response in opposition to the defendants’ written

report. In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that this case should be dismissed.

The court has reviewed the file in this case to determine whether a less drastic

measure than dismissal is appropriate. After such review, it is clear that dismissal of this

case without prejudice is the proper course of action. Russell is an indigent inmate. Thus,

the imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual.

Additionally, Russell has failed to comply with the directives of the orders entered in this

case. It is therefore apparent that any additional effort by this court to secure his

compliance would be unavailing. Consequently, the court concludes that the plaintiff’s

abandonment of his claims, his failure to comply with the orders of this court and his

failure to properly continue prosecution of this cause of action warrant dismissal of this

case.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge

that this case be dismissed without prejudice. It is further

2

Case 2:09-cv-00859-TMH-SRW Document 22 Filed 09/16/11 Page 2 of 3
ORDERED that on or before September 30, 2011, the parties may file objections

to the Recommendation. Any objectionsfiled mustspecifically identify the findingsin the

Magistrate Judge’sRecommendation to which the partyis 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 advisements in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by

the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation 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 v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d

th

33 (11 Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en

th th

banc), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down

prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

DONE, this 16 day of September, 2011.

th

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:09-cv-00859-TMH-SRW Document 22 Filed 09/16/11 Page 3 of 3