Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_08-cv-00374/USCOURTS-almd-2_08-cv-00374-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ANDREW LOUIS FLUKER, ) 

Reg. No. 14372-031 )

)

Petitioner, )

 )

v ) Civil Action No.2:08cv374-WKW

) (WO) 

JOHN B. FOX, WARDEN, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On May 21, 2008 (Doc. No. 4), this court entered an order that directed Petitioner to

either submit the $5.00 filing fee on or before June 6, 2008, or file by that same date the

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

action for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner was specifically cautioned

that his failure to comply with the court’s May 21 order would result in a recommendation

that his case be dismissed. (See Doc. No. 4 at 1.) The requisite time has passed, and

Petitioner has filed nothing in response to the court’s order. Consequently, the court

concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate for Petitioner’s failure to comply with the

court’s order.

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

be DISMISSED without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to comply with the order of this

court.

Case 2:08-cv-00374-WKW-TFM Document 5 Filed 06/26/08 Page 1 of 2
2

 It is further

ORDERED that on or before July 9, 2008, 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

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 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d th

33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en th th

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 26 day of June, 2008. th

/s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-00374-WKW-TFM Document 5 Filed 06/26/08 Page 2 of 2