Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_14-cv-00422/USCOURTS-alsd-2_14-cv-00422-0/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 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ELIJAH KELLY *

*

 Plaintiff, *

vs. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-00422-WS-B

*

CHARLES R. TIPTON, et al., *

*

 Defendants. *

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Elijah Kelly, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding 

pro se, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 together with a 

motion to proceed without prepayment of fees (Docs. 1, 2). This 

action has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4), and is now before the 

Court due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failure to 

obey the Court's order. 

In an order dated September 25, 2014 (Doc. 3), the Court 

observed that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed without prepayment 

of fees (Doc. 2) did not include a copy of the institutional 

record of his inmate account reflecting transactions in 

Plaintiff’s account for the six-month period immediately 

preceding the filing of his complaint, as required by statute. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(2). In addition, the certificate was 

not signed by an authorized officer at the institution. As a 

result, Plaintiff’s motion was denied, and he was directed to 

Case 2:14-cv-00422-WS-B Document 6 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 5
2

file a new motion by October 16, 2014. (Doc. 3). Plaintiff was 

expressly advised that his new motion should include the 

statutorily required copy of the institutional record of his 

inmate account reflecting transactions in his account for the 

six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his 

complaint and a certificate signed by an authorized officer. 

He was further advised that in lieu of filing a properly 

supported motion, he could pay the $350.00 filing fee by 

October 16, 2014. (Doc. 3). Plaintiff was cautioned that 

failure to comply with the Court’s order within the prescribed 

time would result in the dismissal of this action for failure 

to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s order. 

(Id.) 

In response to the Court’s order, Plaintiff filed a 

handwritten letter on October 8, 2014. (Doc. 4). In the letter, 

Plaintiff advised the Court that he could not come up with the 

filing fee and that he could not get an officer to sign the 

certificate. Plaintiff further stated that he would attempt to 

obtain a copy of the institutional record reflecting 

transactions in his inmate account for the six-month period 

immediately preceding the filing of his complaint. Plaintiff 

also indicated that he was scheduled to be released in a year, 

and that he would re-file his action at that time. Plaintiff 

has had no further communications with the Court, and given 

Case 2:14-cv-00422-WS-B Document 6 Filed 01/20/15 Page 2 of 5
3

that more than three (3) months have passed since Plaintiff’s 

October 8th letter, at this juncture, it appears that Plaintiff 

has elected to abandon this action. While Plaintiff asserted 

in the October 8th letter that he could not afford the filing 

fee, and that he could not get an officer to sign his 

certificate, he provides no details regarding any steps he took 

to comply with the Court’s Order dated September 25, 2014. (Doc. 

4). For instance, Plaintiff does not allege that he ever spoke

with anyone in the finance office about a copy of the 

institutional record for his inmate account, nor does he 

identify any authorized officer with whom he spoke about 

certification of the institutional record for his inmate 

account. 

Given Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s directives 

and lack of communication with the Court, it appears that 

Plaintiff has elected to abandon this action. Upon 

consideration of other available alternatives, it is recommended 

that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 

41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to 

obey the Court's orders, as no other lesser sanction will 

suffice. 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 Zow v. Regions Fin. Corp., 2014 U.S. App. 

Case 2:14-cv-00422-WS-B Document 6 Filed 01/20/15 Page 3 of 5
4

Lexis 23321 (11th Cir. 2014) (if a party disregards an order 

despite being warned of the possible consequences, dismissal is 

generally not an abuse of discretion); Tanner v. Neal, 232 Fed. 

Appx. 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal 

without prejudice of inmate's § 1983 action for failure to file 

an amendment to complaint in compliance with court's prior order 

directing amendment and warning of consequences for failure to 

comply); Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 

8 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1962) (interpreting Rule 41(b) not to restrict 

the court's inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte an action 

for lack of prosecution).

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on 

all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects 

to this recommendation or anything in it must, within fourteen 

(14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific 

written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b); S.D.ALA. L.R. 72.4. The parties 

should note that under Eleventh Circuit precedent, “the failure 

to object limits the scope of [] appellate review to plain error 

review of the magistrate judge’s factual findings.” Dupree v. 

Warden, 715 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2013) (emphasis in 

original). In order to be specific, an objection must identify 

the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is 

Case 2:14-cv-00422-WS-B Document 6 Filed 01/20/15 Page 4 of 5
5

made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place 

in the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation where the 

disputed determination is found. An objection that merely 

incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

Magistrate Judge is not specific. 

DONE this 20th day of January, 2015.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00422-WS-B Document 6 Filed 01/20/15 Page 5 of 5