Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00566/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00566-1/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

NORMAN ABBOTT, #186 791, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-566-TMH

) [WO]

WARDEN GARY HETZEL, III, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On October 9, 2012 the court entered an order granting Plaintiff fourteen days to file

an amendment to his complaint. (See Doc. No. 10.) Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure

to comply with the court’s October 9 order would result in a Recommendation that his

complaint be dismissed without further notice. (Id.) The requisite time has passed and

Plaintiff has not complied with the order of the court. Consequently, the court concludes that

dismissal of this case is appropriate for Plaintiff’s failures to prosecute this action and

comply with the orders of the court.

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

be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action and comply

with the orders of this court.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before December 28, 2012, 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

Case 2:12-cv-00566-TMH-CSC Document 12 Filed 12/14/12 Page 1 of 2
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 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 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein th

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

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done this 14 day of December, 2012. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:12-cv-00566-TMH-CSC Document 12 Filed 12/14/12 Page 2 of 2