Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00673/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00673-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KELVIN PEACOCK, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 04-00673-WS-B

TRACEY L. HAWSEY, et al, : 

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se,

filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 8), together

with a Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 14). 

This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4), and is now

before the Court due to Plaintiff’s failure to pay the partial

filing fee. 

On May 5, 2005, after review of Plaintiff's Motion to

Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees, the Court ordered Plaintiff

to pay a $1.50 partial filing fee on or before June 3, 2005.

(Doc. 15). 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 his copy of the Court’s Order been returned

to the Court.

Case 1:04-cv-00673-WS-B Document 16 Filed 10/11/05 Page 1 of 5
2

Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's

Order and to prosecute this action by paying the partial filing

fee, and upon consideration of the alternatives that are

available to the Court, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be

DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as no other lesser sanction

will suffice. Link v. Wabash R. R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82

S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (interpreting Rule 41(b) not

to restrict the court's inherent authority to dismiss sua

sponte an action for lack of prosecution); World Thrust Films,

Inc. v. International Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454,

1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op,

864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d

1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457,

1458 (11th Cir. 1983). Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32,

111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (ruling that federal

courts' inherent power to manage their own proceedings

authorized the imposition of attorney's fees and related

expenses as a sanction); Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d

1536, 1545-46 (11th Cir.)(finding that the court’s inherent

power to manage actions before it permitted the imposition of

fines), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 863, 114 S.Ct. 181, 126 L.Ed.2d

140 (1993). 

Case 1:04-cv-00673-WS-B Document 16 Filed 10/11/05 Page 2 of 5
3

The attached sheet contains important information

regarding objections to this Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 11th day of October, 2005.

 /S/ Sonja F. Bivins 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:04-cv-00673-WS-B Document 16 Filed 10/11/05 Page 3 of 5
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation

or anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service

of this document, file specific written objections with the

clerk of court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo

determination by the district judge of anything in the

recommendation and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the

factual findings of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir.

1988). The procedure for challenging the findings and

recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out in more

detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides, in

part, that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by

filing a “Statement of Objection to Magistrate

Judge’s Recommendation” within ten days after being

served with a copy of the recommendation, unless a

different time is established by order. The

statement of objection shall specify those portions

of the recommendation to which objection is made and

the basis for the objection. The objecting party

shall submit to the district judge, at the time of

filing the objection, a brief setting forth the

party’s arguments that the magistrate judge’s

recommendation should be reviewed de novo and a

different disposition made. It is insufficient to

submit only a copy of the original brief submitted

to the magistrate judge, although a copy of the

original brief may be submitted or referred to and

incorporated into the brief in support of the

objection. Failure to submit a brief in support of

the objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to

a Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or

judgment can be appealed.

2. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing

party may submit a brief opposing the objection within ten

(10) days of being served with a copy of the statement of

objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

Case 1:04-cv-00673-WS-B Document 16 Filed 10/11/05 Page 4 of 5
3. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the

magistrate judge finds that the tapes and original records in

this action are adequate for purposes of review. Any party

planning to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay

the fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial

determination that transcription is necessary is required

before the United States will pay the cost of the transcript.

/s/Sonja F. Bivins 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00673-WS-B Document 16 Filed 10/11/05 Page 5 of 5