Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_09-cv-00829/USCOURTS-almd-1_09-cv-00829-2/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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 __________________________________

TOMMY JAMES JOHNSON, JR. *

#86379

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 1:09-CV-829-TMH

 (WO)

SHERIFF ANDY R. HUGHES, et al., *

Defendants. *

 __________________________________ 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On September 4, 2009 the court entered an order granting Plaintiff fourteen days to

file an amendment to his complaint. (See Doc. No. 3.) On November 4, 2009 the court

granted Plaintiff an extension to and including November 18, 2009 to comply with the

court’s September 4, 2009 order. (See Doc. No. 9.) Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure

to comply with the September 4 order, as extended by the November 4 order, would result

in a Recommendation that his complaint be dismissed. (Doc. No. 3.) The requisite time has

passed and Plaintiff has not complied with the orders 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

Case 1:09-cv-00829-ID-TFM Document 11 Filed 12/10/09 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Recommendation on or before December 22, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects.

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 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 10 day of December 2009. th

/s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00829-ID-TFM Document 11 Filed 12/10/09 Page 2 of 2