Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_05-cv-00167/USCOURTS-almd-3_05-cv-00167-0/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

 EASTERN DIVISION

 ________________________________

OTIS GRAY *

Plaintiff, *

v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05-CV-167-F

MRS. WILSON, et al., *

Defendants. *

 ________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff filed this complaint on February 23, 2005. On March 4, 2005 the court

directed Defendants to file an answer and written report addressing Plaintiff's claims for

relief. In compliance with the court’s order, Defendants submitted an answer and written

report on April 29, 2005 which contained relevant evidentiary materials refuting the

allegations presented in the instant complaint. The court then issued an order directing

Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ answer and written report. (Doc. No. 11.) Plaintiff

was advised that his failure to respond to Defendants’ answer and written report would be

treated by the court "as an abandonment of the claims set forth in the complaint and as

a failure to prosecute this action." Id. (emphasis in original). Additionally, Plaintiff was

"specifically cautioned that [his failure] to file a response in compliance with the

directives of this order" would result in the dismissal of this case. Id. 

The time allotted Plaintiff for the filing of a response expired on May 22, 2005. As

Case 3:05-cv-00167-MEF-SRW Document 12 Filed 06/21/05 Page 1 of 3
2

of the present date, Plaintiff has filed nothing in opposition to Defendants’ answer and

written report as required by order filed May 2, 2005. In light of the foregoing, the court

concludes that this case should be dismissed.

 The court has reviewed the file in this case to determine whether less drastic sanctions

than dismissal are appropriate. After such review, it is clear that dismissal of this case is the

proper sanction. Plaintiff is an indigent state inmate. Thus, the imposition of monetary or

other punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual. Additionally, Plaintiff has

exhibited a lack of respect for this court and its authority as he has failed to comply with the

directives of the orders entered in this case. It is, therefore, apparent that any additional

effort by this court to secure Plaintiff’s compliance would be unavailing. Consequently, the

court concludes that Plaintiff’s abandonment of his claims, his failure to comply with the

orders of this court, and his failure to properly prosecute this cause of action warrant

dismissal of this case. 

For the foregoing reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge

that this case be dismissed without prejudice.

 It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before July 5, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically identify

the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. 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.

Case 3:05-cv-00167-MEF-SRW Document 12 Filed 06/21/05 Page 2 of 3
3

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 (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 21st day of June, 2005.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00167-MEF-SRW Document 12 Filed 06/21/05 Page 3 of 3