Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_07-cv-00207/USCOURTS-alsd-2_07-cv-00207-0/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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GARY STEPHEN KRIST, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 07-00207-KD-B

WARDEN DAVID STREIFF, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed the

instant case alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1).

This case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant

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

appropriate action. Due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this

action and to comply with the Court’s Order dated March 29, 2007

(Doc. 3), it is recommended that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. 

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 16, 2007 (Doc. 1). The

Complaint was not on the Court’s required form, and did not include

the $350 statutory filing fee, nor a motion to proceed without

prepayment of fees. Accordingly, on March 29, 2007, the Court

issued an Order directing Plaintiff to refile his Complaint on the

Court’s form for a § 1983 action, and to either pay the filing fee

or file a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees on the

Court’s required form by April 27, 2007. (Doc. 3). The Clerk was

Case 2:07-cv-00207-KD-B Document 5 Filed 09/17/07 Page 1 of 5
2

directed to forward to Plaintiff the forms for a § 1983 action and

for a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees. Plaintiff was

expressly cautioned that his failure to timely comply with the

Court’s Order would result in the dismissal of his action for

failure to prosecute and to obey an Order of the Court. To date,

Plaintiff has not responded in any manner to the Court's Order.

(Doc. 3), nor has his copy of the Order and enclosures been

returned to the Court. 

Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order

and to prosecute this action, and upon consideration of the

alternatives that are available to the Court, it is recommended

that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule

41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as no other lesser

sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R. R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82

S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (interpreting Rule 41(b) not to

restrict the court's inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte an

action for lack of prosecution); World Thrust Films, Inc. v.

International Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454, 1456-57

(11th Cir. 1995); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101,

102 (11th Cir. 1989); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th

Cir. 1985); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983).

Accord Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115

L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (ruling that federal courts' inherent power to

manage their own proceedings authorized the imposition of

Case 2:07-cv-00207-KD-B Document 5 Filed 09/17/07 Page 2 of 5
3

attorney's fees and related expenses as a sanction); Malautea v.

Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545-46 (11th Cir.) (finding that

the court’s inherent power to manage actions before it permitted

the imposition of fines), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 863, 114 S.Ct.

181, 126 L.Ed.2d 140 (1993).

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to this Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 17th day of September 2007.

 /S/SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00207-KD-B Document 5 Filed 09/17/07 Page 3 of 5
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); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404

(5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). 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 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. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). 

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

magistrate 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

Case 2:07-cv-00207-KD-B Document 5 Filed 09/17/07 Page 4 of 5
5

States will pay the cost of the transcript.

Case 2:07-cv-00207-KD-B Document 5 Filed 09/17/07 Page 5 of 5