Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00039/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00039-0/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

VONDELL POPPELL, : 

 

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-00039-BH-B

MIAMI HERALD KNIGHT :

RIDDER, INC., :

 

Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed

the instant case alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Doc. 1). This case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

72.2(c)(4) for appropriate action. Because Plaintiff has failed

to prosecute and to comply with the Court’s Order dated February

14, 2005, it is recommended that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. 

Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) and motion to proceed without

prepayment of fees(Doc. 2) were not filed on the Court’s

required forms. Accordingly, on February 14, 2005, this Court

issued an Order directing Plaintiff to file his complaint and a

motion to proceed without prepayment of fees on the Court's

Case 1:05-cv-00039-BH-B Document 4 Filed 03/18/05 Page 1 of 5
1

Plaintiff was also advised that in lieu of the motion to proceed

without payment of fees, he could pay the $150.00 filing fee by March 4, 2005

(Doc. 3).

current forms by March 4, 20051 (Doc. 3). Plaintiff was advised

that if he elected not to refile on the Court’s current forms

for a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a motion to proceed

without prepayment of fees, or pay the filing fee, his action

would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute

and to obey the Court's order. The Court also directed the

Clerk to forward to Plaintiff a copy of the requisite forms

along with a copy of the Order. To date, Plaintiff has not

responded in any manner to the Court's Order (Doc. 3), nor has

his copy of the Order and forms been returned to the Court. 

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

and to prosecute this action, 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

Case 1:05-cv-00039-BH-B Document 4 Filed 03/18/05 Page 2 of 5
(11th Cir. 1985); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th

Cir. 1983). Accord 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).

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to this Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 18th day of March, 2005.

 S/SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00039-BH-B Document 4 Filed 03/18/05 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);

Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc).

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 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. 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

Case 1:05-cv-00039-BH-B Document 4 Filed 03/18/05 Page 4 of 5
required before the United States will pay the cost of the transcript.

S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00039-BH-B Document 4 Filed 03/18/05 Page 5 of 5