Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00169/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00169-2/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

TRAVIS A. MESKO, #286 587, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:14-CV-169-WHA

) [WO]

J. JACKSON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on March 13, 2014. On March 17,

2014, the court directed Defendants to file an answer and written report addressing Plaintiff's

claims for relief. In compliance with the court’s order, Defendant submitted an answer and

written report on July 28, 2014, and a supplemental written report on August 26, 2014, which

contained relevant evidentiary materials refuting the allegations presented in the complaint.

The court then issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ answer and

written report. Doc. No. 34. Plaintiff was advised that his failure to respond to Defendants’

written report, as supplemented, would be treated by the court "as an abandonment of the

claims set forth in the complaint and as a failure to prosecute this action." Id. Plaintiff was

"specifically cautioned that [his failure] to file a response in compliance with the directives

of this order" would result in the dismissal of this case. Id.

The time allotted Plaintiff for the filing of a response expired on September 17, 2014.

As of the present date, Plaintiff has filed nothing in opposition to Defendant’s answer and

Case 2:14-cv-00169-WKW-TFM Document 36 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 3
written and supplemental reports as required by order filed August 27, 2014. In light of the

foregoing, the court concludes that this case should be dismissed.

The court has reviewed the file to determine whether a sanction less drastic than

dismissal is appropriate. After such review, the undersigned concludes dismissal of this case

is the proper sanction. Plaintiff is an indigent state inmate. The imposition of monetary or

other punitive sanctions against him would, therefore, be ineffectual. Further, Plaintiff has

failed to comply with the directives of the orders entered. It is, therefore, apparent that any

additional effort by this court to secure Plaintiff’s compliance would be unavailing.

Consequently, the court concludes Plaintiff’s abandonment of his claims and his failure to

comply with an order of this court warrant dismissal. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837

(11th Cir. 1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for

failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232 Fed.

Appx. 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate’s §

1983 action for failure to file an amendment to complaint in compliance with court’s prior

order directing amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply); also Link

v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962) (interpreting Rule 41(b) not to restrict the court’s

inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte an action for lack of prosecution).

For the foregoing reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge

this case be DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is further

2

Case 2:14-cv-00169-WKW-TFM Document 36 Filed 10/14/14 Page 2 of 3
ORDERED that on or before October 29, 2014, the parties may file an objection to

the Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify 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 this

Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in

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

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar a 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 14 day of October 2014.

th

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:14-cv-00169-WKW-TFM Document 36 Filed 10/14/14 Page 3 of 3