Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00967/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00967-0/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

DARIUS MONTEZ HAMPTON, )

#215 243, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:11-CV-967-TMH

) [WO]

OFFICER WILLIAMS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on November 15, 2011. On November

17, 2011, the court directed Defendants to file an answer and written report addressing

Plaintiff's claims for relief. In compliance with the court’s order, Defendants submitted an

answer and written report on January 30, 2012 which contained relevant evidentiary materials

refuting the allegations presented in the instant complaint. The court then issued an order

directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ answer and written report. (Doc. No. 11.)

Plaintiff was advised that his failure to respond to Defendants’ answer and written 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.)

The time allotted Plaintiff for the filing of a response expired on February 22, 2012.

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

Case 2:11-cv-00967-TMH-SRW Document 12 Filed 03/22/12 Page 1 of 3
written report as required by order filed January 31, 2012. 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. International Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d

1454, 1456-57 (11 Cir. 1995).

th

For the foregoing reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge

that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the

Recommendation on or before April 5, 2012. Any objectionsfiled mustspecifically identify

2

Case 2:11-cv-00967-TMH-SRW Document 12 Filed 03/22/12 Page 2 of 3
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 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein

th

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of

th

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981 ) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the

th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

DONE, this 22 day of March, 2012.

nd

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:11-cv-00967-TMH-SRW Document 12 Filed 03/22/12 Page 3 of 3