Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00164/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00164-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

 

CHASE CARMEN HUNTER, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-164-WKW-WC 

 ) 

JIM L. RIDLING, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 On April 12, 2016, the undersigned Magistrate Judge entered an Order (Doc. 5) 

instructing Plaintiff to complete and file the long-form application to proceed in forma 

pauperis and submit other documentation in support of her pending motion (Doc. 2) to 

proceed without prepayment of court costs. In particular, the Order conveyed the court’s 

concern about discrepancies between Plaintiff’s present motion and a similar motion she 

filed in an earlier case in this district, which was denied, as well as more recent motions 

filed in conjunction with suits in other districts. The Order instructed Plaintiff to file her 

long-form application and other documents or pay the civil filing fee “on or before April 

29, 2016,” and cautioned Plaintiff that if she failed to do so “this action may be 

dismissed.” Order (Doc. 5) at 4-5. 

Plaintiff has failed to pay the civil filing fee, to provide the court with the 

requested documents, or even to request an extension of time in which to comply or lodge 

Case 2:16-cv-00164-WKW-WC Document 6 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 3
2

an objection to the court’s Order. In other words, some twenty-five days later, Plaintiff 

has not responded to the Court’s Order. As such, the undersigned concludes that Plaintiff 

has abandoned her claims and the complaint is due to be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure 

to prosecute this action and failure to abide by the orders of the court. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) 

is DENIED due to Plaintiff’s failure to supplement her motion as set out in the court’s 

Order (Doc. 5) of April 12, 2016. Furthermore, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the 

Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice due to 

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and comply with the orders of the court. 

Finally, it is 

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

Recommendation on or before May 20, 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 Sec., 

Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 

Case 2:16-cv-00164-WKW-WC Document 6 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 3
3

(11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). Plaintiff is advised that this Recommendation is not a final 

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

 Done this 6th day of May, 2016. 

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.___________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:16-cv-00164-WKW-WC Document 6 Filed 05/06/16 Page 3 of 3