Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00515/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00515-0/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 

MARIA CHARLOTTE PRUITT, ) 

#221 168, ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-515-MHT 

 ) [WO] 

ALA. OF CORRECTIONS, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 On December 10, 2015, the court granted Plaintiff eighteen days to file an amended 

complaint. Doc. No. 10. Plaintiff was cautioned that her failure to comply with the court’s 

December 10 order would result in a Recommendation that her complaint be dismissed. Id. The 

requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has not complied with the court’s December 10, 2015, 

order. Consequently, the court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate for Plaintiff’s 

failures to prosecute this action and comply with the orders of the court. 

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

DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action and comply with 

the orders of this court. 

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before February 4, 2016, Plaintiff may file an objection to the 

Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the factual findings and legal 

conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, 

conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. This 

Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable. 

Case 2:15-cv-00515-MHT-TFM Document 11 Filed 01/20/16 Page 1 of 2
2

 Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in the 

Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of 

factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive the right to challenge on 

appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except 

upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see 

Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley 

v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989). 

 DONE, this 20th day of January 2016. 

 /s/Terry F. Moorer 

 TERRY F. MOORER 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

 

Case 2:15-cv-00515-MHT-TFM Document 11 Filed 01/20/16 Page 2 of 2