Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00526/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00526-0/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

ALVIN JAMES JOHNSON, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-CV-526-TMH

)

OFFICER BROWNFIELD, )

)

 Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Alvin James Johnson ["Johnson"], an indigent inmate, sought to initiate this 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action challenging actions taken against him during his confinement at the

Montgomery County Detention Facility. However, the plaintiff failed to submit either the

requisite filing fee or an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis upon his original

submission of the civil action to this court. Accordingly, the court returned the complaint to

Johnson and required that on or before June 29, 2009 he "file the complaint accompanied by

either the appropriate affidavit in support of [a] motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis ... OR the $350 filing fee." Order of June 9, 2009 - Court Doc. No. 3 at 1-2. In

response to this order, the plaintiff filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees

and costs on June 15, 2009 (Court Doc. No. 4). He did not, however, file the complaint as

ordered by the court. Moreover, the application to proceed without prepayment of fees, an

application made by Johnson under penalty of perjury, contained inaccurate information

regarding income received by the plaintiff. This inaccuracy necessitated an amendment to

the application explaining the discrepancy in Johnson's sworn application and the inmate

Case 2:09-cv-00526-TMH-TFM Document 10 Filed 08/17/09 Page 1 of 3
2

account information filed in support of the application. Order of June 18, 2009 - Court Doc.

No. 5. Johnson filed the requisite amendment to his application on June 30, 2009 (Court

Doc. No. 8) but did not file the complaint as ordered by the court.

In light of the foregoing, the court entered an order that on or before July 16, 2009

Johnson "(i) show cause why he has failed to file the complaint with this court in compliance

with the directives of the order entered on June 9, 2009 (Court Doc. No. 3) ('[T]he plaintiff

shall file the complaint accompanied by either the appropriate affidavit in support of his

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ... OR the $350 filing fee.'); and (ii) file the

complaint as ordered by the court." Order of July 2, 2009 - Court Doc. No. 9. The order

further "cautioned [Johnson] that if he fails to file a response to this order the undersigned

will recommend that this case be dismissed." Id. As of the present date, Johnson has filed

nothing in response to this order. The court therefore concludes that this case should be

dismissed.

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

be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to comply with the orders of this

court and his failure to properly prosecute this action. It is further

ORDERED that on or before September 2, 2009 the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. Any objection must specifically identify the findings in the

Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be

considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not

Case 2:09-cv-00526-TMH-TFM Document 10 Filed 08/17/09 Page 2 of 3
3

a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings in the Recommendation

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 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds

Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d th

1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth th

Circuit issued prior to September 30, 1981.

Done this 17th day of August, 2009.

/s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00526-TMH-TFM Document 10 Filed 08/17/09 Page 3 of 3