Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00686/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00686-0/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

_____________________________

ELLIOT RAMSEY, #212 151 *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:10-CV-686-ID

(WO)

KEITH ROGERS, et al., *

Defendants. *

_____________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On August 16, 2010 the court granted Plaintiff fourteen days to file with the Clerk

either the $350.00 filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

accompanied by an affidavit in support thereof. (Doc. No. 2.) Plaintiff was cautioned that

his failure to comply with the August 16 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 either the filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

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

Case 2:10-cv-00686-ID-WC Document 3 Filed 09/07/10 Page 1 of 2
Recommendation on or before September 20, 2010. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party 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 7th day of September 2010.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 2:10-cv-00686-ID-WC Document 3 Filed 09/07/10 Page 2 of 2