Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00526/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00526-0/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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM MITCHELL, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 07-00526-CG-B

TODD STERN, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed

a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1), together with a Motion

to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 2). This action was

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. 

Following a review of Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Without

Prepayment of Fees, the Court, on January 18, 2008, ordered

Plaintiff to pay a $9.33 partial filing fee by February 19, 2008

(Doc. 3). On January 31, 2008, Plaintiff’s copy of the January 18,

2008 Order was returned to the Court with the notations “Released”

and “Return to Sender.” (Doc. 4). As a result, Court officials

contacted the Escambia County Detention Center, which is

Plaintiff’s address of record, and learned that Plaintiff was

transferred to another facility in October 2007. Officials at the

Escambia County Detention Center do not have a forwarding address

Case 1:07-cv-00526-CG-B Document 5 Filed 02/22/08 Page 1 of 4
2

for Plaintiff, and to date, Plaintiff has not taken any steps to

update his address with the Court. 

Due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action and keep

the Court notified of his current address, and upon consideration

of the alternatives that are available to the Court, it is

recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as

no other lesser sanction will suffice. 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); World Thrust

Films, Inc. v. International Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d

1454, 1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op,

864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d

1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458

(11th Cir. 1983). Accord Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 111

S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (ruling that federal courts'

inherent power to manage their own proceedings authorized the

imposition of attorney's fees and related expenses as a sanction);

Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545-46 (11th

Cir.)(finding that the court’s inherent power to manage actions

before it permitted the imposition of fines), cert. denied, 510

U.S. 863, 114 S.Ct. 181, 126 L. Ed.2d 140 (1993). 

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

Case 1:07-cv-00526-CG-B Document 5 Filed 02/22/08 Page 2 of 4
3

objections to this Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 22nd day of February, 2008

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 1:07-cv-00526-CG-B Document 5 Filed 02/22/08 Page 3 of 4
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of this

document, file specific written objections with the clerk of court. 

Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the district

judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an attack, on

appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate judge. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)( c); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir.

1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en

banc). The procedure for challenging the findings and recommendations

of the magistrate judge is set out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4

(June 1, 1997), which provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a matter

excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a “Statement

of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation” within

ten days after being served with a copy of the

recommendation, unless a different time is established by

order. The statement of objection shall specify those

portions of the recommendation to which objection is made

and the basis for the objection. The objecting party shall

submit to the district judge, at the time of filing the

objection, a brief setting forth the party’s arguments that

the magistrate judge’s recommendation should be reviewed de

novo and a different disposition made. It is insufficient

to submit only a copy of the original brief submitted to the

magistrate judge, although a copy of the original brief may

be submitted or referred to and incorporated into the brief

in support of the objection. Failure to submit a brief in

support of the objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a Court

of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can be

appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the magistrate

judge finds that the tapes and original records in this action are

adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to this

recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is advised

that a judicial determination that transcription is necessary is

required before the United States will pay the cost of the transcript.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00526-CG-B Document 5 Filed 02/22/08 Page 4 of 4