Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00293/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00293-0/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 

LEON CHAPPELL, A/K/A, ) 

WILBUR LEON SMITH, #236 111, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-293-MHT 

 ) [WO] 

JUDGE TRACY S. MCCOOEY, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 On June 17, 2015, the court directed Plaintiff to show cause on or before June 29, 2015, 

why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to forward to the Clerk of Court an initial 

partial filing fee in the amount of $5.38 as directed by order entered May 4, 2015. See Doc. Nos. 

3, 4. The order informed Plaintiff to advise the court whether he authorized prison officials to 

withdraw the funds from his prison account for payment of the initial partial filing fee, whether 

he simply had chosen not to submit the filing fee, or whether he was unable to comply at this 

time with the order directing payment of the initial partial filing fee. Id. Plaintiff was also 

cautioned that his failure to comply with the June 17 order would result in a Recommendation 

that his complaint be dismissed. Id. 

 The requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has not provided the court with the initial 

partial filing fee nor has he responded to the court’s June 17, 2015, order to show cause. 

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. 

Case 2:15-cv-00293-MHT-CSC Document 5 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 2
 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 

 ORDERED that on or before August 3, 2015, Plaintiff may file an objection to the 

Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate 

Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections 

will not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is advised this Recommendation is not a 

final order and, therefore, it is not appealable. 

 Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and advisements in the 

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the 

District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar a party from attacking on 

appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the District Court except 

upon the 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 the 20th day of July, 2015. 

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

 CHARLES S. COODY 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-00293-MHT-CSC Document 5 Filed 07/20/15 Page 2 of 2