Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00576/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00576-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

TABITHA DICKERSON, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:05-CV-576-MEF 

)

DONAL CAMPBELL, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Tabitha Dickerson [“Dickerson”], a state inmate, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

on June 15, 2005. In this complaint, Dickerson asserts that she was exposed to secondhand smoke during her confinement at the Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women. The court

recently ascertained that Dickerson no longer resided at the last address she had provided

for service. The order of procedure entered in this case specifically directed Dickerson to

immediately inform the court of any new address. Order of June 21, 2005 - Court

Document No. 5 at 4. Since Dickerson failed to comply with this directive, the court

entered an order requiring that on or before May 17, 2007 the plaintiff show cause why this

case should not be dismissed for her failure to inform this court of her present address.

Order of May 7, 2007 - Court Document No. 20. Additionally, the court cautioned

Dickerson that her failure to comply with the aforementioned order would result in a

recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. Dickerson has filed nothing in response

Case 2:05-cv-00576-MEF-WC Document 21 Filed 05/21/07 Page 1 of 3
2

to the order entered on May 7, 2007. The court therefore concludes that this case is due

to be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case

be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to properly prosecute this action

and her failure to comply with the orders of this court. It is further 

ORDERED that on or before June 4, 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 partyis objecting. 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 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,

Case 2:05-cv-00576-MEF-WC Document 21 Filed 05/21/07 Page 2 of 3
3

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 21 day of May, 2007. st

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, Jr.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-00576-MEF-WC Document 21 Filed 05/21/07 Page 3 of 3