Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00199/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00199-0/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

AL S. FLETCHER, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 16-0199-CB-C

NURSE HARVEY, et al., :

 Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed a complaint under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. ), together with a Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees 

(Docs. 1, 2). This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a)(2)(R) for appropriate action. It is recommended 

that this action be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to pay the partial 

filing fee. 

Upon review of Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 

2), the Court found that Plaintiff was required to pay a $5.50 partial filing fee. On May 

23, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the partial filing fee within 21 days (Doc. 3)

and no appeal of that order was filed. Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply 

with the order within the prescribed time would result in the dismissal of his action. 

Plaintiff has not paid the partial filing fee, nor has he otherwise responded to the 

Court’s order.

Due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order and to prosecute this 

Case 1:16-cv-00199-KD-C Document 4 Filed 09/01/16 Page 1 of 3
action by paying the partial filing fee, the Court recommends that this action be 

dismissed without prejudice. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 

1389 (1962) (“The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has 

generally been considered an ‘inherent power’ governed not by rule or statute but by 

the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieved the 

orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”); Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 483 (11th

Cir. 2006) (recognizing a district court’s inherent power to enforce orders and provide 

for the efficient disposition of litigation); Wilson v. Sargent, 313 F.3d 1315, 1331-32 & n.7 

(11th Cir. 2002) (holding that a prisoner’s failure to pay the partial filing fee under § 1915 

is a basis for dismissal); see generally Betty K Agencies, Ltd. V. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 

1337-38 (11th Cir. 2005) (discussing dismissals pursuant to the court’s inherent power 

and dismissals based on Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 

concluding that only a dismissal with prejudice requires findings of contumacious 

conduct and that lesser sanctions will not suffice). 

In the present action, if plaintiff disputes the finding of failure to pay the partial 

filing fee and wants to proceed with the litigation of his action, he shall set forth in an 

objection to the report and recommendation the reasons for his failure to pay. Wilson,

414 F.3d at 1320 (citing to Hatchet v. Nettles, 201 F.3d 651, 654 (5th Cir. 2000) (finding that 

an objection to a recommendation is an acceptable means to ascertain the steps taken by 

a prisoner to comply with the order to a pay partial filing fee)). 

Notice of Right to File Objections

A copy of this Report and Recommendation shall be served on all parties in the 

manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in 

Case 1:16-cv-00199-KD-C Document 4 Filed 09/01/16 Page 2 of 3
it must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific 

written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 

72(b); S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(c)(1) & (2). The parties should note that under Eleventh 

Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or 

recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the 

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district 

court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was 

informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to 

object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal 

for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be 

specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which 

objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the 

Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination is 

found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing 

before the Magistrate Judge is not specific.

DONE this the 1st day of September, 2016.

 s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00199-KD-C Document 4 Filed 09/01/16 Page 3 of 3