Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-01154/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-01154-1/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

 ________________________________

BOBBY JOE SUGGS *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:05-CV-1154-MHT

 (WO)

 

JAMIE MITCHELL, NURSE, et al., *

Defendants. *

 ________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Covington County Jail, filed this complaint

on December 7, 2005. On December 12, 2005 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 their answers and written reports on January 20, 2006

and February 20, 2006 which contained relevant evidentiary materials refuting the allegations

presented in the instant complaint. 

The court then issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’

answers and written reports. (Doc. No. 12.) Plaintiff was advised that his failure to respond

to Defendants’ answers and written 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. (emphasis in original). Additionally, Plaintiff was "specifically cautioned that

[his failure] to file a response in compliance with the directives of this order" would

Case 2:05-cv-01154-MHT-VPM Document 13 Filed 04/11/06 Page 1 of 3
2

result in the dismissal of this case. Id. 

The time allotted Plaintiff for the filing of a response expired on March 13, 2006. As

of the present date, Plaintiff has filed nothing in opposition to Defendants’ answers and

written reports as required by order filed February 21, 2006. 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 less drastic sanctions

than dismissal are appropriate. After such review, it is clear that dismissal of this case is the

proper sanction. Plaintiff is an indigent state inmate. Thus, the imposition of monetary or

other punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual. Additionally, Plaintiff has

exhibited a lack of respect for this court and its authority as he 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 Plaintiff’s compliance would be unavailing. Consequently, the

court concludes that Plaintiff’s abandonment of his claims, his failure to comply with the

orders of this court, and his failure to properly prosecute this cause of action warrant

dismissal of this case. 

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

that this case be dismissed without prejudice.

 It is further

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

Recommendation on or before April 25, 2006. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous,

Case 2:05-cv-01154-MHT-VPM Document 13 Filed 04/11/06 Page 2 of 3
3

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 11 day of April 2006. th

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-01154-MHT-VPM Document 13 Filed 04/11/06 Page 3 of 3