Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00073/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00073-2/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

_____________________________

JERRY RANDOLPH MCBEE, *

#105 694,

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:11-CV-73-TMH

(WO)

ALABAMA DEPT. OF CORR., et al., *

Defendants. *

_____________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On February 9, 2011 the court entered an order granting Plaintiff fifteen days to

amend his complaint. (See Doc. No. 6.) Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply

with the February 9 order would result in a Recommendation that his complaint be dismissed.

(Id.) The requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has not complied with the order of the court.

Consequently, the court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate for Plaintiff’s

failures to prosecute this action and comply with the orders of the court.

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

be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action and comply

with the orders of this court.

It is further

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

Recommendation on or before June 6, 2011. Any objections filed must specifically identify

Case 2:11-cv-00073-TMH-CSC Document 7 Filed 05/23/11 Page 1 of 2
the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. 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 recommendations in the

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

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

findings in the report 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

th

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of

th

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the

th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done this 23 day of May, 2011.

rd

/s/Charles S. Coody

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:11-cv-00073-TMH-CSC Document 7 Filed 05/23/11 Page 2 of 2