Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00596/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00596-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

BRUCE WILLIAMS, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Case No. 2:16-cv-596-WKW-WC 

 ) 

NEIL ARAMSTRONG, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Before the court is Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) and motion for leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis (Doc. 3). On July 25, 2016, the District Judge entered an Order (Doc. 

2) referring this matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge “for consideration and 

disposition or recommendation on all pretrial matters as may be appropriate.” 

Because Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court is 

obligated to undertake review of Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2002) (applying § 

1915(e) in non-prisoner action). That statute instructs the court to dismiss any action 

wherein it is determined that an in forma pauperis applicant’s suit is “frivolous or 

malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary 

relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). 

On November 3, 2016, the undersigned Magistrate Judge entered an order (Doc. 4) 

noting that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any claim upon which relief could be granted 

Case 2:16-cv-00596-WKW-WC Document 5 Filed 01/03/17 Page 1 of 3
2 

and that it was therefore due to be dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Order 

further directed as follows: 

Plaintiff shall, on or before November 23, 2016, file an amended complaint 

that, consistent with the principles described in this order, complies with Rule 

8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so that this court may satisfy its 

statutory screening obligation and, if appropriate, Defendants may respond 

to Plaintiff’s allegations. Plaintiff must clearly and succinctly allege the facts 

with which he is aggrieved, and, as to each defendant he names in the 

complaint, he must clearly and succinctly allege the specific actions taken by 

such defendant which he alleges has violated his constitutional rights. 

Order (Doc. 4) at 3-4 (emphasis in original). Finally, the Order cautioned Plaintiff that, 

should he fail to file an amended complaint as directed, the undersigned would enter a 

“recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute this action and abide 

by the orders of the court.” Id. at 4. 

 Plaintiff has not filed his amended complaint as instructed by the court’s Order of 

November 3, 2016. Accordingly, the undersigned Magistrate Judge hereby 

RECOMMENDS that the Complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED due to Plaintiff’s failure to 

prosecute this action and abide by the orders of the court. It is further 

ORDERED that Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file any objections to the said 

Recommendation on or before January 17, 2017. 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.

Case 2:16-cv-00596-WKW-WC Document 5 Filed 01/03/17 Page 2 of 3
3 

 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 (5thCir. 

1982); see Stein v. Reynolds Sec., Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. 

City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11thCir. 1981) (en 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 3rd day of January, 2017. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:16-cv-00596-WKW-WC Document 5 Filed 01/03/17 Page 3 of 3