Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00589/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00589-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

REONTAY HARLEY, #264 878, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-589-WKW

) [WO]

OFFICER PEDEHELP MARTIN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on July 18, 2016. When he filed this lawsuit, 

Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Bullock Correctional Facility in Union Springs, Alabama. On 

September 6, 2016, the envelope containing Plaintiff’s copy of an order filed August 9, 2016, was 

returned to the court marked as undeliverable because Plaintiff is no longer at the address he had 

provided to the court when he filed this complaint. 

All parties have an affirmative duty to inform this court of any change of address during 

the pendency of their actions. The court entered an order on September 9, 2016, directing Plaintiff 

to provide the court with his present address by September 19, 2016. Doc. 7. Plaintiff was 

cautioned that his failure to comply with the court's September 19 order would result in a 

recommendation this case be dismissed. Id. Plaintiff has filed no response to the September 19, 

2016, show cause order nor provided the court with a current service address. 

Upon review of the pleadings filed, the undersigned finds the court file contains no 

alternate address for Plaintiff and that he has not provided this court with a current address since 

the inception of filing the instant complaint. The undersigned, therefore, concludes this case is 

due to be dismissed.

Case 2:16-cv-00589-WKW-TFM Document 8 Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

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

to prosecute this action.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before November 15, 2016, Plaintiff may file an objection to the 

Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the factual findings and legal 

conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, 

conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. This 

Recommendation is not a final order 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 a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of 

factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive the right to challenge on 

appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except upon 

grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust 

Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 

F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).

DONE, this 31st day of October 2016.

/s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00589-WKW-TFM Document 8 Filed 10/31/16 Page 2 of 2