Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00798/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00798-1/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

 ________________________________

ADRIAN D. PURNELL, #228 442 *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:09-CV-798-TMH

 (WO)

LOUIS BOYD, et al., *

Defendants. *

 ________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on August 21, 2009. On September 22,

2009 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 8, 2010 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.

34.) 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 result in the dismissal of this case.

(Id.) 

Case 2:09-cv-00798-TMH-CSC Document 37 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 3
2

The time allotted Plaintiff for the filing of a response expired on February 1, 2010.

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

written reports as required by order filed January 11, 2010. 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. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962) (interpreting Rule

41(b) not to restrict the court’s inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte an action for lack of

prosecution); World Thrust Films, Inc., v. International Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d

1454, 1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995). 

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

Case 2:09-cv-00798-TMH-CSC Document 37 Filed 03/04/10 Page 2 of 3
3

Recommendation on or before March 18, 2010. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is

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 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 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the

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

September 30, 1981.

Done this 4th day of March, 2010.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00798-TMH-CSC Document 37 Filed 03/04/10 Page 3 of 3