Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_07-cv-00241/USCOURTS-almd-3_07-cv-00241-3/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

EASTERN DIVISION

WESLEY KEITH HOLMES, JR., )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-241-WKW

 ) [WO]

 )

SHERIFF JAY JONES, et al., )

 )

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On March 19, 2007, Wesley Keith Holmes, Jr. [“Holmes”], a county inmate, filed

this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging the conditions of confinement at the Lee County

Detention Facility. The order of procedure entered in this case instructed Holmes that he

must immediately inform the court of any new address. Order of March 20, 2007 - Court

Document No. 4 at 5. On April 25, 2007, this court entered an order, a copy of which the

Clerk mailed to Holmes. The postal service returned this order because Holmes no longer

resided at the address he had provided to the court for service. In light of the foregoing,

the court entered an order requiring that on or before June 14, 2007 Holmes show cause

why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to inform the court of his present

address. Order of June 4, 2007 - Court Doc. No. 13. The court specifically cautioned

Holmes that his failure to comply with the directives of this order would result in a

Case 3:07-cv-00241-WKW-WC Document 14 Filed 06/19/07 Page 1 of 3
2

recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. The plaintiff has filed nothing in

response to the June 4, 2007 order. The court therefore concludes that this case is due to

be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

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

be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to properly prosecute this action

and his failure to comply with the orders of this court. It is further 

ORDERED that on or before July 2, 2007 the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive

or 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 advisements in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by

the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation 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

Case 3:07-cv-00241-WKW-WC Document 14 Filed 06/19/07 Page 2 of 3
3

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 19th day of June, 2007.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00241-WKW-WC Document 14 Filed 06/19/07 Page 3 of 3