Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00639/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00639-0/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

JEFFREY BARTON, )

AIS #191236, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CASE NO. 2:16-CV-639-WKW 

)

ALA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, ) 

)

 Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Jeffrey Barton (“Barton”), a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Easterling

Correctional Facility, initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on August 3, 2016. After 

reviewing the complaint and finding numerous deficiencies with this pleading, the court 

determined that Barton should be provided an opportunity to file an amended complaint to 

correct the deficiencies. The court therefore issues a detailed order explaining the 

deficiencies and providing Barton specific instructions with respect to filing an amended 

complaint. Doc. 2 at 1–4. The court specifically advised Barton “that this case will proceed 

only against the defendants named and claims presented in the amended complaint” and 

cautioned him that his failure to comply with the directives of this order would result in a 

recommendation that this case be dismissed. Doc. 2 at 3–4. 

The time allowed to Barton to file the amended complaint expired on September 21, 

2016. See Doc. 8. As of the present date, Barton has failed to file an amended complaint 

Case 2:16-cv-00639-WKW-GMB Document 9 Filed 10/12/16 Page 1 of 3
2

as required by this court. In light of Barton’s failure to file the requisite amended 

complaint, the court concludes that this case should be dismissed. Tanner v. Neal, 232 F. 

App’x 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate’s 

§ 1983 action for failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with court’s prior 

order directing amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply); Moon v. 

Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding that, as a general rule, dismissal for 

failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion where a litigant has been 

forewarned).

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

be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to file an amended complaint as 

ordered by this court. 

The plaintiff may file objections to the Recommendation on or before October 26, 

2016. The plaintiff must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in 

the Recommendation to which his objection is made. The plaintiff is advised that frivolous, 

conclusive, or general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written objections 

to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions 

of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District 

Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of 

the party to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual 

and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of 

plain error or manifest injustice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark 

Case 2:16-cv-00639-WKW-GMB Document 9 Filed 10/12/16 Page 2 of 3
3

Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 

794 (11th Cir. 1989).

DONE this 12th day of October, 2016.

/s/ Gray M. Borden 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00639-WKW-GMB Document 9 Filed 10/12/16 Page 3 of 3