Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00308/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00308-0/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

JAMES EDWARD WHITE, #209419, ) 

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CASE NO. 2:16-CV-308-WHA 

)

JEFFERSON S. DUNN, et al., )

 )

 Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

James Edward White (“White”), a state inmate, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action 

on April 29, 2016. In the instant complaint, White challenges the failure of administrative 

officials at Staton Correctional Facility to investigate alleged threats to his safety. White

did not submit the $350 filing fee or $50 administrative fee and, instead, filed a document 

seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis before this court. In support of this request, 

White provided financial information necessary to determine the average monthly balance 

in his inmate account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of this 

complaint and the average monthly deposits to his inmate account during the past six 

months. 

After a thorough review of the financial information provided by White and 

pursuant to the requisite provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A), the court determined that 

White owed an initial partial filing fee of $20.00. Doc. No. 3 at 1-2. The court therefore 

ordered that White pay the initial partial filing fee on or before May 26, 2016. Id. at 2. In 

Case 2:16-cv-00308-WHA-TFM Document 4 Filed 06/13/16 Page 1 of 3
2

addition, this order specifically informed White “that it is his responsibility to submit 

the appropriate paperwork to the prison account clerk for transmission of such funds 

to this court for payment of the initial partial filing fee.” Id. (emphasis in original). 

The order also “advised [White] that if he is unable to procure the initial partial filing fee 

within the time allowed by this court he must inform the court of such inability and request 

an extension of time within which to file the fee.” Id. at 3. Moreover, the court specifically 

cautioned White that failure to pay the requisite fee within the time allowed by the court

would result in a Recommendation “that this case be dismissed and such dismissal will not 

be reconsidered unless exceptional circumstances exist.” Id. 

White has failed to pay the initial partial filing fee within the time allowed by the 

court. The court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. See Moon v. 

Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been 

forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.); see 

also Tanner v. Neal, 232 F. App’x 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal 

without prejudice of inmate’s § 1983 action for failure to file an amended complaint in 

compliance with court’s prior order directing amendment and warning of consequences for 

failure to comply). 

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. This case be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to pay the 

initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A) as 

ordered by this court. 

Case 2:16-cv-00308-WHA-TFM Document 4 Filed 06/13/16 Page 2 of 3
3

2. The plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction be DENIED as such motion is 

not properly before the court absent payment of the initial partial filing fee. 

It is further

ORDERED that on or before June 29, 2016 the parties may file objections to the 

Recommendation. A party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal 

conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or 

general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of 

legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of the party 

to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal 

conclusions 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); 11TH CIR. R. 3-

1. See Stein v. Lanning 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).

DONE this 13th day of June, 2016.

 /s/Terry F. Moorer

 TERRY F. MOORER 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00308-WHA-TFM Document 4 Filed 06/13/16 Page 3 of 3