Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_06-cv-00961/USCOURTS-almd-1_06-cv-00961-3/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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THOMAS P. WHITE, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-CV-961-WKW

) [WO]

)

LAMAR GLOVER, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause of action is pending before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint

filed by Thomas P. White [“White”], a state inmate, on October 24, 2006. In his complaint,

White presents general challenges to the conditions of confinement at the Houston County

Jail. 

Pursuant to the orders of this court, the defendants filed a written report supported

by relevant evidentiary materials in which they addressed the claims for relief presented

by White. The report and evidentiary materials refute the conclusory allegations presented

in the instant cause of action. The court thereafter issued an order directing White to file

a response to the written report. Order of December 6, 2006 - Court Doc. No. 12. The

order advised White that his failure to respond to the defendants’ written report 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

Case 1:06-cv-00961-WKW-SRW Document 21 Filed 04/01/09 Page 1 of 3
compliance with the directives of this order” would result in the dismissal of this civil

action. Id. The time allotted White for filing a response in compliance with this order

expired on February 5, 2007. See Order of January 9, 2007 - Court Doc. No. 19. As of

the present date, White has failed to file a response in opposition to the defendants’ written

report. 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 without prejudice is the proper course of action. White is an indigent inmate. Thus,

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

Additionally, White has exhibited a lack of deference 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 White’s compliance would be

unavailing. Consequently, the court concludes that the plaintiff’s abandonment of his

claims, his failure to comply with the orders of this court and his failure to properly

continue prosecution of 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 April 14, 2009 the parties may file objections to the

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

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive

2

Case 1:06-cv-00961-WKW-SRW Document 21 Filed 04/01/09 Page 2 of 3
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 1st day of April, 2009.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:06-cv-00961-WKW-SRW Document 21 Filed 04/01/09 Page 3 of 3