Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00786/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00786-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

KENNETH ALLEN RAY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11cv786-WHA

) (WO)

WARDEN PHYLLIS BILLUPS, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause of action is pending before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed

by the plaintiff, Kenneth Allen Ray (“Ray”), a state inmate, challenging actions taken against

himduring his previous confinement at the Draper Correctional Facilityin Elmore, Alabama. 

It has come to the attention of the court that the plaintiff is no longer housed at the

most recent address the court has on file for the plaintiff. All parties have an affirmative duty

to inform this court of any changes of address during the pendency of their claims. Plaintiff

was provided notice of this requirement in the Court’s September 27, 2011 order of

procedure. (Doc. # 4 at ¶ 7(h)).

On March 27, 2013, the court entered an order directing the plaintiff to show cause

why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to keep the court informed of his current

address. (Doc. # 19). The plaintiff was specifically advised that “that his failure to comply

with this order will result in a Recommendation that his complaint be dismissed without

prejudice and without further notice from the court.” (Doc. # 19). The plaintiff was given

Case 2:11-cv-00786-WHA-CSC Document 20 Filed 04/16/13 Page 1 of 3
until April 10, 2013, to file his response. To date, the plaintiff has filed nothing in response

to the court’s order in accordance with and as required by the court’s prior orders. At this

juncture, it does not appear that the court file contains an alternate address for Plaintiff and

that he has not provided this court with his current address. In light of the foregoing, the

court concludes that the plaintiff has abandoned his claims and failed to prosecute this action. 

The court has reviewed the file in this case to determine whether less drastic 

sanctions than dismissal are appropriate and finds that under the facts of this case dismissal

is the proper sanction. The plaintiff is an indigent state inmate. Moreover, the plaintiff has

exhibited a lack of respect for this court and its authority as he has failed to respond to the

orders entered in this case. It is therefore clear that any additional effort by this court to

procure the plaintiff’s compliance would be unavailing. Thus, the court finds that the

imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against the plaintiff would be ineffectual. 

Consequently, the court concludes that the plaintiff’s abandonment of his claims, his failure

to comply with the orders of this court and his failure to prosecute this cause of action

warrant dismissal of this case. 

CONCLUSION

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

be dismissed for the plaintiff's abandonment of his claims, his failure to comply with the

orders of this court and his failure to prosecute this action. It is further

ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to the said Recommendation on

2

Case 2:11-cv-00786-WHA-CSC Document 20 Filed 04/16/13 Page 2 of 3
or before April 30, 2013. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the 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 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein

v. Reynolds 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), 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 16th day of April, 2013.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:11-cv-00786-WHA-CSC Document 20 Filed 04/16/13 Page 3 of 3