Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00025/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00025-1/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

STANLEY UNDERWOOD, #195177, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-CV-25-TMH

) [WO]

)

J. C. GILES, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case is before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed by Stanley

Underwood [“Underwood”], a state inmate, on January 9, 2009. In his complaint,

Underwood challenges the adequacy of the medical treatment provided to him for an eye

injury during his confinement at the Ventress Correctional Facility. 

Pursuant to the orders of this court, the defendants filed written reports supported by

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

Underwood. The reports and evidentiary materials refute the self-serving, conclusory

allegations presented in the instant cause of action. The court thereafter issued an order

directing Underwood to file a response to the written reports. Order of March 5, 2009 -

Court Doc. No. 14. The order advised Underwood that his failure to respond to the

defendants’ 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. at 1 (emphasis

in original). Additionally, the order “specifically cautioned [the plaintiff] that [his failure]

Case 2:09-cv-00025-TMH-CSC Document 15 Filed 04/14/09 Page 1 of 3
2

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 Underwood for filing a response in

compliance with the directives of this order expired on March 25, 2009. As of the present

date, Underwood has failed to file a requisite response in opposition to the defendants’

written reports. 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. Underwood is an indigent inmate.

Thus, the imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be

ineffectual. Additionally, Underwood has exhibited a lack of deference 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 Underwood’s

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 

ORDERED that on or before April 27, 2009 the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Case 2:09-cv-00025-TMH-CSC Document 15 Filed 04/14/09 Page 2 of 3
3

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 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 (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 decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close

of business on September 30, 1981.

Done this 14th day of April, 2009.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00025-TMH-CSC Document 15 Filed 04/14/09 Page 3 of 3