Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00772/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00772-3/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 

HARRY JOSEPH, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-772-MHT 

 ) [WO] 

MICKEY POWELL, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was filed by Plaintiff on October 21, 2015. On 

October 27, 2015, the court entered an order of procedure which instructed Plaintiff, 

among other things, to inform the court of any change in his address. Doc. No. 4. The 

order also cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply with this specific directive would 

result in a Recommendation that his case be dismissed. Id. 

 On December 7, 2015, Plaintiff’s copies of court orders entered November 24, 

2015, were returned to the court marked as undeliverable because Plaintiff was no longer 

at the most recent address he provided to the court when he filed this action. 

Consequently, a show cause order was entered on December 9, 2105, directing Plaintiff 

to provide the court with his present address. Doc. No. 14. Plaintiff was cautioned that 

his failure to comply with the court’s December 9, 2015, order would result in a 

Recommendation this case be dismissed. Id. On December 16, 2015, the envelope 

containing Plaintiff’s copy of the court’s December 9 show cause order was returned to 

the court marked as undeliverable. As it appears clear that Plaintiff is no longer residing 

Case 2:15-cv-00772-MHT-WC Document 15 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

at the most recent service address he provided to the court and that he has not provided 

this court with a new service address, the undersigned concludes that dismissal of the 

complaint at this juncture is appropriate. 

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

DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failures to prosecute this action properly 

and to comply with the orders of this court. 

Further, it is 

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said 

Recommendation on or before January 4, 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) shall 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 (5th Cir. 1982); 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Stein v. Lanning 

Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 

F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). The parties are advised that this Recommendation 

is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. 

Case 2:15-cv-00772-MHT-WC Document 15 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

Done this 18th day of December, 2015. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00772-MHT-WC Document 15 Filed 12/18/15 Page 3 of 3