Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_13-cv-00119/USCOURTS-almd-3_13-cv-00119-2/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

 EASTERN DIVISION

BRYAN KEEFE GOGGINS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-119-TMH

) [WO] 

JAY JONES (SHERIFF), et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was filed by Plaintiff on February 25, 2013. At the time

he filed this suit, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Lee County Detention Center located in

Opelika, Alabama. On March 6, 2013, the court entered an order of procedure. Plaintiff’s

copy of this order was returned to the court on March 18, 2013, marked as undeliverable

because he was no longer at the address he provided to the court when he filed the captioned

action. 

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

during the pendency of their cases. Accordingly, the court entered an order on March 19,

2013 directing Plaintiff to provide the court with his present address on or before March 29,

2013. (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the court's March

19 order would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. (Id.) Plaintiff’s copy

of the court’s March 19 order was returned to the court on April 1, 2013, marked as

undeliverable. As it appears clear that Plaintiff is no longer residing at the most recent

Case 3:13-cv-00119-TMH-SRW Document 9 Filed 05/28/13 Page 1 of 3
address he provided to the court and that he has not provided this court with a new address

for service, the undersigned concludes that dismissal of the complaint is appropriate. 

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

be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failures to prosecute this action properlyand

to comply with the orders of this court. 

 It is further

ORDERED that on or before June 11, 2013, 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 that this

Recommendation is not a final order of the court 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 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.

2

Case 3:13-cv-00119-TMH-SRW Document 9 Filed 05/28/13 Page 2 of 3
DONE, this 28 day of May, 2013. th

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 3:13-cv-00119-TMH-SRW Document 9 Filed 05/28/13 Page 3 of 3