Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00527/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00527-0/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

JARVIS BRAGGS, #265 351, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-527-MHT

) [WO]

DR. RAMEEN, )

)

Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this action on July 23, 2015. On October 14, 2015, the 

court directed Defendant to file an answer and written report addressing Plaintiff's claims for 

relief in his complaint. In compliance with the court’s order, Defendant submitted an answer on 

November 12, 2015, and a written report on November 23, 2015, which contained relevant 

evidentiary materials refuting the allegations in the complaint. Doc. Nos. 18, 21. Upon review 

of this report, the court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendant’s 

answer and written report. Doc. No. 22. The order advised Plaintiff that his failure to respond to 

the report would be treated by the court “as an abandonment of the claims set forth in the 

amended complaint and as a failure to prosecute this action.” Id. at 1. The order “specifically 

cautioned [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 Plaintiff for filing a response in compliance with the directives of the 

court’s December 1, 2015, order expired on January 27, 2016. As of the present date, Plaintiff

has failed to file a response in opposition to Defendant’s written report. The court, therefore,

concludes this case should be dismissed.

Case 2:15-cv-00527-MHT-CSC Document 25 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 3
2

The court has reviewed the file to determine whether a drastic measure less than 

dismissal is appropriate. After such review, dismissal is the proper course of action. Plaintiff is 

an indigent individual. The imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against him 

would be ineffectual. Plaintiff’s inaction in the face of Defendant’s report and evidentiary 

materials refuting the claims raised suggests he does not seek to proceed with this case. It,

therefore, appears that any additional effort by this court to secure his compliance would be 

unavailing. Consequently, the court concludes that Plaintiff’s abandonment of his claims and his 

failure to comply with an order of this court warrant dismissal. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 

837 (11th Cir. 1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for 

failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232 

Fed.Appx. 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate’s § 

1983 action for failure to file an amendment to complaint in compliance with court’s prior order 

directing amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply). 

For the above stated reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge 

that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is further

ORDERED that the parties may file any objections to this Recommendation on or before 

March 18, 2016. Any objections filed must specifically identify the factual findings and legal 

conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the parties object. Frivolous, 

conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the 

Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of 

factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive the right to challenge on 

Case 2:15-cv-00527-MHT-CSC Document 25 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 3
3

appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except 

upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see 

Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley 

v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).

 Done this 4th day of March, 2016.

 /s/Charles S. Coody

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00527-MHT-CSC Document 25 Filed 03/04/16 Page 3 of 3