Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_24-cv-01288/USCOURTS-alnd-5_24-cv-01288-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

HOLLIS CHADWICK SMITH, 

Plaintiff,

v. 5:24-cv-1288-CLM-SGC

BIRMINGHAM CITY POLICE

DEPARTMENT, et al., 

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Plaintiff Hollis Chadwick Smith filed this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

(Doc. 1). Though Smith applied to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), his 

application was deficient, and the magistrate judge ordered him to file a new 

IFP application. (Docs. 2, 3). Smith was cautioned that if he failed to do so in 

a timely manner, the court might dismiss his lawsuit without further notice. 

(Doc. 3). Though the Clerk of Court sent a copy of the order to Smith at the 

address he provided in his complaint, the United States Postal Service 

returned the order as undeliverable with the following notations: “Return to 

Sender”; “Attempted—Not Known”; and “Unable to Forward.” (Doc. 4). 

The magistrate judge ordered Smith to update his address, but the 

Postal Service also returned that order as undeliverable with the following 

notations: “Return to Sender”; “Attempted—Not Known”; and “Unable to 

Forward.” (Docs. 5, 6). So the magistrate judge entered a report, 

recommending the court dismiss this case for failure to prosecute under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Doc. 7). 

On December 2, 2024, the Postal Service returned the report and 

recommendation—which had been sent to Smith’s then-listed address at the 

Cullman County Jail—as undeliverable with the following notations: Return 

to Sender”; “Attempted—Not Known”; and “Unable to Forward.” (Doc. 10). 

Also on December 2, 2024, the court received from Smith an amended 

complaint and second IFP application. (Docs. 8, 9). 

FILED

 2025 Jan-15 PM 04:12

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:24-cv-01288-CLM-SGC Document 14 Filed 01/15/25 Page 1 of 2
2

Like Smith’s first application, the second IFP application was deficient 

because it did not include a certified copy of Smith’s jail or prison account 

statements nor did it include an affidavit identifying the person who refused 

to certify the records, the date of the refusal, and the exact response Smith 

received. (Doc. 9). Smith mailed both the amended complaint and the second 

IFP application from Blount County Corrections in Oneota, Alabama. (Doc. 8, 

p. 10; Doc. 9, p. 4). 

The court investigated Smith’s location and learned he was housed at 

Blount County Correctional. (Doc. 12). Because it appeared Smith did not 

receive any of the court’s prior orders, the court mailed those orders to him at 

Blount County Correctional and gave him an additional 14 days to object to 

the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation or submit a properly 

completed IFP application. (Id.). 

That deadline has passed, but Smith has not objected to the report and 

recommendation, submitted a properly completed IFP application, or filed 

any other documents with the court. Plus, the December 16, 2024, order has 

not been returned as undeliverable. 

So after considering the record and the magistrate judge’s report, the 

court ADOPTS the report and ACCEPTS the recommendation. (Doc. 7). 

Consistent with that recommendation, the court will dismiss this case 

without prejudice for Smith’s failure to prosecute his claims. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 41(b). 

Done on January 15, 2025. 

 _________________________________

 COREY L. MAZE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:24-cv-01288-CLM-SGC Document 14 Filed 01/15/25 Page 2 of 2