Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00350/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00350-0/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 

JACK A. DAVIS, #182 448, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-350-MHT 

 ) [WO] 

NURSE DIANNE, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

On June 3, 2015, the undersigned directed Plaintiff to forward to the court an inmate 

account statement reflecting the average monthly balances and deposits to his prison account for 

the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of this complaint to assist the court in 

determining whether he should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this cause of action. 

Doc. No. 4. Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the June 3 order would result 

in a Recommendation that his complaint be dismissed. Id. The requisite time has passed and 

Plaintiff has not provided the court with his inmate account statement or otherwise responded to 

the court’s June 3 order. Consequently, the court concludes that dismissal of this case is 

appropriate for Plaintiff’s failures to comply with the orders of the court and to prosecute this 

action. 

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

DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to comply with the orders of this court and 

to prosecute this action. 

 It is further 

Case 2:15-cv-00350-MHT-CSC Document 6 Filed 08/12/15 Page 1 of 2
ORDERED that on or before August 26, 2015, Plaintiff may file an objection to the 

Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate 

Judge’s Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections 

will not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is advised that this Recommendation is not 

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

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in the 

Magistrate Judge’s report 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 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 

1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (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 the 12th day of August, 2015. 

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

 CHARLES S. COODY 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-00350-MHT-CSC Document 6 Filed 08/12/15 Page 2 of 2