Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00030/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00030-0/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 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

QUINTEN LEE PATON, #273 893, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-30-WHA 

 ) [WO] 

JEFFERSON DUNN, COM., et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 The court received this civil action in which Quinten Paton is listed as a plaintiff. 

However, Paton did not file the $350 filing fee and $50 administrative fee necessary 

when a plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis, nor did he submit an original 

affidavit in support of a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by 

the required documentation from the inmate account clerk. Consequently, the court did 

not have the information essential in determining whether Paton should be allowed to 

proceed in forma pauperis and, therefore, entered an order requiring he provide the court 

with the requisite information by January 29, 2016. Doc. No. 3. The court specifically 

cautioned Paton that failure to comply with this order would result in a Recommendation 

this case be dismissed. Id.

 As of the present date, Paton has filed nothing in response to the aforementioned 

order. The court, therefore, concludes this case is due to be dismissed. 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 

Case 2:16-cv-00030-WHA-WC Document 4 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 3
2 

discretion.); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232 F. App’x 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua 

sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate’s § 1983 action for failure to file an 

amended complaint in compliance with court’s prior order directing amendment and 

warning of consequences for failure to comply). 

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

dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to file the requisite fees or provide the 

court with financial information in compliance with the order of this court. 

It is further 

ORDERED that Plaintiff may file any objections to this Recommendation on or 

before March, 17, 2016. Any objections filed must specifically identify the factual 

findings and legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which 

Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by 

the District Court. 

 Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in 

the Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the 

District Court of factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive 

the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual 

and legal conclusions” except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of 

justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 

1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989). 

Case 2:16-cv-00030-WHA-WC Document 4 Filed 03/03/16 Page 2 of 3
3 

 Done, this 3rd day of March 2016. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 2:16-cv-00030-WHA-WC Document 4 Filed 03/03/16 Page 3 of 3