Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00209/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00209-2/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

____________________________

CARL EDWARD MILLER, *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:11-CV-209-ID

(WO)

PRESTON HUGHES, CHIEF JAILER, *

et al.,

Defendants. *

____________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on March 21, 2011. On March 23,

2011, the court directed Defendants to file an answer and written report addressing Plaintiff's

claims for relief. In compliance with the court’s order, Defendants submitted answers and

written reports on June 2, 2011, which contained relevant evidentiary materials addressing

the allegations presented in the instant complaint and indicated that Plaintiff failed to exhaust

available administrative remedies. The court then issued an order directing Plaintiff to file

a response to Defendants’ answers and written reports. (Doc. No. 21.) Plaintiff was advised

that his failure to respond to Defendants’ answers and written reports 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.) (emphasisin original). Additionally, 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.)

Case 2:11-cv-00209-MEF-SRW Document 25 Filed 08/12/11 Page 1 of 3
The time allotted Plaintiff for the filing of a response expired on July 5, 2011. As of

the present date, Plaintiff has filed nothing in opposition to Defendants’ answer and written

report as required by order entered June 13, 2011. In light of the foregoing, the court

concludes that this case should be dismissed.

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

sanctions than dismissal are appropriate. After such review, it is clear that dismissal of this

case is the proper sanction. Plaintiff is an indigent inmate. Thus, the imposition of monetary

or other punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual. Additionally, Plaintiff has

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

directives of the orders entered in this case. It is, therefore, apparent that any additional

effort by this court to secure Plaintiff’s compliance would be unavailing. Consequently, the

court concludes that Plaintiff’s abandonment of his claims, his failure to comply with the

orders of this court, and his failure to properly prosecute this cause of action warrant

dismissal of this case. See 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); World Thrust Films, Inc., v. International Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d

1454, 1456-57 (11 Cir. 1995).

th

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

that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is further

2

Case 2:11-cv-00209-MEF-SRW Document 25 Filed 08/12/11 Page 2 of 3
ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the

Recommendation on or before August 26, 2011. Any objections 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 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 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein

th

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of

th

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the

th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

DONE, this 12 day of August, 2011.

th

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:11-cv-00209-MEF-SRW Document 25 Filed 08/12/11 Page 3 of 3