Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00888/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00888-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

WOODBURCK NOE, # 148475, )

 )

Petitioner, )

 )

 v . ) Civil Action No. 2:15cv888-MHT

 ) (WO)

LEON FORNISS, et al., )

 )

Respondents. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On December 2, 2015, this court entered an order directing the petitioner to either

submit the $5.00 filing fee on or before December 22, 2015, or file by that same date an

appropriate affidavit in support of a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperisincluding

a prison account statement fromthe account clerk at Elmore Correctional Facility containing

the account clerk’s certified statement of the balance in the petitioner’s prison account at the

time he filed his habeas petition. (Doc. No. 3 at 1.) The petitioner was specifically

cautioned that his failure to comply with the court’s December 2, 2015, order would result

in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. (Id. at 2.)

The requisite time has passed, and the petitioner has failed to submit either the filing

fee or an appropriate affidavit (with the account clerk’s statement) in support of a motion

for leave to proceed in forma pauperisin compliance with this court’s order. Consequently,

this court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate.

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

Case 2:15-cv-00888-MHT-CSC Document 4 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 2
be DISMISSED without prejudice because the petitioner has failed to comply with the

orders of this court.

It is further ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to this

Recommendation or before February 2, 2016. A party must specifically identify the factual

findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made;

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

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

Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc). th

Done this 19 day of January, 2016.

th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:15-cv-00888-MHT-CSC Document 4 Filed 01/19/16 Page 2 of 2