Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00693/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00693-0/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JIMMIE L. HOWARD, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-00693-CG-B

BALDWIN COUNTY CORRECTION :

CENTER,

:

Defendant.

:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed

the instant case alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Docs.

1, 5). This case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4) for

appropriate action. Because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute and

to comply with the Court’s Order dated February 7, 2007, it is

recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

On February 7, 2007, this Court issued an Order directing

Plaintiff to file by March 5, 2007, an amended motion to proceed

without prepayment of fees, including a statement of his inmate

account balances for the six-month period preceding the filing of

his action signed by a designated prison official.(Doc. 7).

Plaintiff was advised that his failure to file the amended motion

to proceed without prepayment of fees within the prescribed time

and in the format ordered by the Court would result in the

Case 1:06-cv-00693-CG-B Document 8 Filed 04/11/07 Page 1 of 4
1

The Court notes that this is not the first instance in

which Plaintiff has failed to timely comply with an Order of this

Court. (See Docs. 4, 7)

dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and to obey the

Court’s Order. The Court also directed the Clerk to forward to

Plaintiff a copy of the requisite forms along with a copy of the

Order. To date, Plaintiff has not responded in any manner to the

Court's Order (Doc. 7), nor has his copy of the Order and forms

been returned to the Court. 

Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order1

and to prosecute this action, and upon consideration of the

alternatives that are available to the Court, it is recommended

that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule

41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as no other lesser

sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R. R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82

S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (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); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101,

102 (11th Cir. 1989); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th

Cir. 1985); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983).

Accord Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115

L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (ruling that federal courts' inherent power to

manage their own proceedings authorized the imposition of

attorney's fees and related expenses as a sanction); Malautea v.

Case 1:06-cv-00693-CG-B Document 8 Filed 04/11/07 Page 2 of 4
Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545-46 (11th Cir.) (finding that

the court’s inherent power to manage actions before it permitted

the imposition of fines), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 863, 114 S.Ct.

181, 126 L.Ed.2d 140 (1993).

The attached sheet contains important information regarding 

objections to this Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 11th day of April 2007.

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00693-CG-B Document 8 Filed 04/11/07 Page 3 of 4
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything

in it must, within ten days of the date of service of this document, file

specific written objections with the clerk of court. Failure to do so

will bar a de novo determination by the district judge of anything in the

recommendation and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the factual findings

of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)©); Lewis v. Smith, 855

F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th

Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). The procedure for challenging the findings

and recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out in more detail in

SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a magistrate

judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a matter excepted by

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a “Statement of Objection

to Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation” within ten days after

being served with a copy of the recommendation, unless a

different time is established by order. The statement of

objection shall specify those portions of the recommendation

to which objection is made and the basis for the objection.

The objecting party shall submit to the district judge, at the

time of filing the objection, a brief setting forth the

party’s arguments that the magistrate judge’s recommendation

should be reviewed de novo and a different disposition made.

It is insufficient to submit only a copy of the original brief

submitted to the magistrate judge, although a copy of the

original brief may be submitted or referred to and

incorporated into the brief in support of the objection.

Failure to submit a brief in support of the objection may be

deemed an abandonment of the objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a Court

of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). Pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the magistrate judge finds

that the tapes and original records in this action are adequate for

purposes of review. Any party planning to object to this recommendation,

but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial

determination that transcription is necessary is required before the

United States will pay the cost of the transcript.

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00693-CG-B Document 8 Filed 04/11/07 Page 4 of 4