Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00684/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00684-0/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 DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RONDALD VINCENT WILLIAMS, #239426, )

a.k.a., RONNIE WILLIAMS, )

 )

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-684-MHT

)

MS. WILSON, R.N., et al, )

 )

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Ronald Vincent Williams (“Williams”), a state inmate and frequent litigant in this 

court, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on August 19, 2016. In the complaint, Williams

alleges that in July of 2015 medical personnel at the Easterling Correctional Facility, 

including the defendant, “fil[ed] false claims under [his] identity . . . to receive funds for 

programs never received.” Complaint - Doc. No. 1 at 3. Williams further asserts that the 

defendants denied him necessary medical treatment in retaliation for his filing a grievance 

against them. Id. 

Upon initiation of his case, Williams filed an application for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis. In support of this request, Williams provided financial information 

necessary to determine the average monthly balance in his inmate account for the 6-month 

period immediately preceding the filing of this complaint and the average monthly deposits 

to his inmate account during the past six months. 

Case 2:16-cv-00684-MHT-TFM Document 9 Filed 10/20/16 Page 1 of 3
2

After a thorough review of the financial information provided by Williams and 

pursuant to the requisite provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A), the court determined that 

Williams owed an initial partial filing fee of $16.60. Order of August 23, 2016 - Doc. No. 

6 at 1-2. The court therefore ordered that Williams pay the initial partial filing fee on or 

before September 12, 2016. Id. at 2. In addition, this order specifically informed Williams

“that it is his responsibility to submit the appropriate paperwork to the prison 

account clerk for transmission of such funds to this court for payment of the initial 

partial filing fee.” Id. (emphasis in original). The order also “advised [Williams] that if 

he is unable to procure the initial partial filing fee within the time allowed by this court he 

must inform the court of such inability and request an extension of time within which to 

file the fee.” Id. at 3. Moreover, the court specifically cautioned Williams that failure to 

pay the requisite fee within the time allowed by the court would result in a 

Recommendation “that this case be dismissed and such dismissal will not be reconsidered 

unless exceptional circumstances exist.” Id. The court granted Williams an extension until 

September 21, 2016 to file the initial partial filing fee. Order of September 6, 2016 - Doc. 

No. 8. 

Williams has failed to pay the initial partial filing fee within the time allowed by the 

court. The court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. See Moon v. 

Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been 

forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.). 

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

Case 2:16-cv-00684-MHT-TFM Document 9 Filed 10/20/16 Page 2 of 3
3

dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to pay the initial partial filing fee in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A) as ordered by this court. 

The plaintiff may file objections to the Recommendation on or before November 4,

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

the Recommendation to which the 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 de novo determination by the District Court 

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

plaintiff 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. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); 11th CIR.

R. 3-1. See Stein v. Lanning Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). 

DONE this 20th day of October, 2016.

 /s/Terry F. Moorer

 TERRY F. MOORER 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00684-MHT-TFM Document 9 Filed 10/20/16 Page 3 of 3