Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00948/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00948-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ANDRE L. WEBSTER, #159444 )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-948-MEF

 ) [WO]

)

BOB RILEY, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause is before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed by Andre Lavel

Webster [“Webster”], a state inmate, on October 5, 2005. The defendants filed written

reports in compliance with the orders of this court in which they addressed each of

Webster’s claims for relief. Specifically, the defendants submitted relevant evidentiary

materials that refuted the allegations presented in the instant cause of action. The court

thereafter issued an order directing Webster to file a response to the written reports. See

Order of January 20, 2006 - Court Doc. No. 32. The order advised Webster that his failure

to respond to the defendants’ written reports would be treated by the court “as an

abandonment of the claims set forth in the complaint and as a failure to prosecute this

action.” Id. at 1 (emphasis in original). Additionally, the order “specifically cautioned

[the plaintiff] that [his failure] to file a response in compliance with the directives of

this order” would result in the dismissal of this civil action. Id. The time allotted Webster

for filing a response to this order expired on February 8, 2006. As of the present date,

Case 2:05-cv-00948-MEF-VPM Document 33 Filed 02/17/06 Page 1 of 3
2

Webster has filed nothing in opposition to the defendant’s written reports as required by

the orders of this court. In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that this case should

be dismissed.

The court has reviewed the file in this case to determine whether a less drastic

measure than dismissal is appropriate. After such review, it is clear that dismissal of this

case is the proper course of action. Webster is an indigent county inmate. Thus, the

imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual.

Additionally, Webster has exhibited a lack of respect for this court and its authority as he

has failed to comply with the directives of the orders entered in this case. It is therefore

apparent that any additional effort by this court to secure Webster’s compliance would be

unavailing. Moreover, the responses and undisputed evidentiary materials filed by the

defendants indicate that Webster is not entitled to any relief in this cause of action.

Consequently, the court concludes that Webster’s abandonment of his claims, his failure

to comply with the orders of this court and his failure to prosecute this cause of action

warrant dismissal of this case. 

 CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge

that this case be dismissed without prejudice. It is further

ORDERED that on or before 3 March 2006 the parties may file objections to the

Case 2:05-cv-00948-MEF-VPM Document 33 Filed 02/17/06 Page 2 of 3
3

Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. 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 advisements in the

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

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

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

District Court except upon 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 17 day of February, 2006. th

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00948-MEF-VPM Document 33 Filed 02/17/06 Page 3 of 3