Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_11-cv-00517/USCOURTS-almd-3_11-cv-00517-2/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

 EASTERN DIVISION

 _____________________________

CEDRIC M. JONES, *

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 3:11-CV-517-TMH

 (WO)

RUSSELL COUNTY SHERIFF - *

HEATH TAYLOR, et al.,

*

Defendants.

 _____________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on June 29, 2011. On June 30, 2011,

the court entered an order (Doc. No. 4) directing Defendants to file an answer and special

report addressing Plaintiff’s claims for relief. In compliance with the court’s order,

Defendants submitted an answer and special report (Doc. Nos. 10 & 15) which contained

relevant evidentiarymaterials refuting the allegations presented in the instant complaint. The

court then issued an order (Doc. No. 23) directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’

answer and special report. Plaintiff was advised that his failure to respond to Defendants’

answer and special report 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 3:11-cv-00517-TMH-WC Document 25 Filed 10/05/11 Page 1 of 3
The time allotted Plaintiff for the filing of a response expired on September 21, 2011. 

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

written report as required by the order filed August 31, 2011. 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. Int’l Family Entm’t, 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

2

Case 3:11-cv-00517-TMH-WC Document 25 Filed 10/05/11 Page 2 of 3
ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the 

Recommendation on or before October 19, 2011. 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 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein

v. Reynolds Sec., 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 5th day of October 2011.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

3

Case 3:11-cv-00517-TMH-WC Document 25 Filed 10/05/11 Page 3 of 3