Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00439/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00439-1/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ARTHUR GLENN ANDERSON, )

AIS #107331, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-439-WKW

 ) [WO]

)

GWENDOLYN MOSLEY, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause is before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed by Arthur Glenn

Anderson [“Anderson”], a state inmate, on May 16, 2006. The defendants filed a written

report in compliance with the orders of this court in which they addressed the claims for

relief presented by Anderson. Specifically, the defendants submitted relevant evidentiary

materials that refuted the self-serving, conclusory allegations presented in the instant cause

of action. The court thereafter issued an order directing Anderson to file a response to the

written report. Order of June 26, 2006 - Court Doc. No. 10. The order advised Anderson

that his failure to respond to the defendants’ 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. at 1 (emphasis in original). Additionally, the order “specifically cautioned

[the plaintiff] that [his failure] 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 Anderson for

filing a response to this order expired on August 28, 2006. As of the present date, Anderson

Case 2:06-cv-00439-WKW-CSC Document 17 Filed 07/16/07 Page 1 of 3
2

has filed nothing in opposition to the defendants’ written report as required by the orders of

this court. 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 is the proper course of action. Anderson is an indigent state inmate. Thus, the

imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual.

Additionally, Anderson 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 Anderson’s compliance would be

unavailing. Moreover, the response and undisputed evidentiary materials filed by the

defendants indicate that Anderson is not entitled to any relief in this cause of action.

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 prosecute 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 July 30, 2007 the parties may file objections to the

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

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive

Case 2:06-cv-00439-WKW-CSC Document 17 Filed 07/16/07 Page 2 of 3
3

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 of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed

down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Done this 16th day of July, 2007.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00439-WKW-CSC Document 17 Filed 07/16/07 Page 3 of 3