Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_14-cv-00042/USCOURTS-alsd-1_14-cv-00042-0/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

JAMES GIBSON, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 14-00042-WS-N

WANDA LIGHTNER, et al, :

Defendants. :

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 

December 15, 2014, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

On March 14, 2014, this Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff’s amended motion to 

proceed without prepayment of fees and vacated it’s previous order dated February 4, 2014 

directing Plaintiff to pay a partial filing fee of $105.86 (Doc. 7). On December 15, 2014, the 

Court entered an order for Plaintiff to advise the court by January 15, 2015 if he was still 

interested in proceeding with this litigation (Doc. 8). On December 22, 2014, the Court’s order 

dated December 15, 2014, was returned as undeliverable with the notation “return to sender”.

Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the Court’s order or to notify the Court of 

a change of address would be treated as an abandonment of the prosecution of this action.

Due to this failure, the Court construes the lack of a response as an indication that Plaintiff is no 

longer interested in proceeding with his action.

Case 1:14-cv-00042-WS-N Document 10 Filed 01/07/15 Page 1 of 3
As a consequence of 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 (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).

Notice of Right to File Objections

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the 

manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything 

in it must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific 

written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P.

72(b); S.D. ALA. L.R. 72.4. In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific 

finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, 

and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation where the 

disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference 

Case 1:14-cv-00042-WS-N Document 10 Filed 01/07/15 Page 2 of 3
or refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific.

DONE this 7th day of January, 2015.

 s/KATHERINE P. NELSON 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 1:14-cv-00042-WS-N Document 10 Filed 01/07/15 Page 3 of 3