Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00316/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00316-6/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

ALFONSO BLACKMON, a/k/a, :

YAHYA ABDUL LATEEF, a/k/a,

YAHYA R. EL’AMIN, a/k/a, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-00316-BH-B

SHERIFF JIMMY JOHNSON, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action is before the Court on Plaintiff Alfonso

Blackmon’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 48) and Defendants

Jimmy Johnson, Calvin Means, Martin Crenshaw, and Baldwin County,

Alabama Commission’s Motion for an Extension of Time. (Doc. 49).

The referenced motions have been referred to the undersigned

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

appropriate action. Upon a careful review of Plaintiff’s Motion

and Defendants’ Motion, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s

Motion be denied, and that Defendants’ Motion be granted for the

reasons set forth herein. 

In his motion, Plaintiff seeks an order entering judgment

against Defendants due to their failure to timely file their Answer

in compliance with the Court’s Order entered on July 11, 2008.

(Doc. 39). Subsequent to the filing of Plaintiff’s motion,

Defendants, on August 4, 2008, filed a motion requesting leave to

Case 1:05-cv-00316-CG-B Document 52 Filed 08/05/08 Page 1 of 5
1

Defendants also filed a response in opposition to

Plaintiff’s Motion for Default. (Doc. 51).

file their Answer out of time, and filed their Answer1. (Docs. 49,

50) In their motion, Defendants assert that their Special Report

was timely submitted on July 29, 2008 (Doc. 45); however,

Defendants’ counsel inadvertently failed to submit Defendants’

Answer along with the Special Report. Defendants assert that given

the slight delay in the filing of their Answer, no party will be

prejudiced. 

The law is clear that entry of judgment by default is a

drastic remedy which should be used only in extreme situations.

Wahl v. McLver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (llth Cir. 1985). The general

preference is that cases be heard on the merits rather than

resorting to sanctions that deprive litigants of their day in

court. Id. Based upon the record before the Court, the undersigned

finds that Plaintiff’s motion is due to be denied, and that

Defendants’ motion is due to be granted. This case does not

involve a situation in which Defendants have blatantly disregarded

Orders of the Court, or have caused lengthy delays that have

unnecessarily protracted this litigation. In this case, Defendants

timely submitted their Special Report. (Doc. 45). While it is

undisputed that their Answer was not timely filed along with the

Special Report due to the oversight of their counsel, their Answer

was filed, less than a week later, when defense counsel discovered

the oversight. The undersigned cannot discern any prejudice that

Case 1:05-cv-00316-CG-B Document 52 Filed 08/05/08 Page 2 of 5
3

has resulted from this brief delay. Accordingly, the undersigned

recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default be DENIED, and that

Defendants’ Motion for an Extension be GRANTED.

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to the Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 5th day of August, 2008.

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00316-CG-B Document 52 Filed 08/05/08 Page 3 of 5
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)(c); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir.

1988). 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, in part, 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. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing

party may submit a brief opposing the objection within ten (10)

days of being served with a copy of the statement of objection.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

3. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded).

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

Case 1:05-cv-00316-CG-B Document 52 Filed 08/05/08 Page 4 of 5
5

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 1:05-cv-00316-CG-B Document 52 Filed 08/05/08 Page 5 of 5