Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00227/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00227-2/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 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

W. T. Hunt, JR., :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-00227-KD-B

T. Brannon, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is an action by a former Alabama inmate alleging

violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. 

Plaintiff filed this Section 1983 action on April 10, 2006,

while incarcerated at Limestone Correctional Facility. (Doc. 1).

After a review of Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court entered an Order

directing Plaintiff to re-file his Complaint on the Court’s form

and to pay the $350.00 filing fee, or in lieu thereof, file a

Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees by May 21, 2006. (Doc.

2). Additionally, the Court directed the Clerk to send to

Plaintiff the appropriate forms for a complaint and motion to

proceed without prepayment of fees. 

Case 1:06-cv-00227-KD-B Document 22 Filed 01/22/08 Page 1 of 5
2

On May 22, 2006, Plaintiff filed a new complaint and a motion

to proceed without prepayment of fees on the correct forms (Docs.

3, 4). In an Order dated August 7, 2006, Plaintiff was granted

permission to proceed without prepayment of fees. (Doc. 6). 

On October 25, 2007, the Court learned from the Alabama

Department of Corrections that Plaintiff had been released from the

Department’s custody and was presently on parole. (Doc. 16). As a

result, in an Order dated October 29, 2007 (Doc. 17), the Court

observed that because Plaintiff initiated this action while he was

a prisoner, he remained obligated to pay the entire $350.00 filing

fee in this action. Gay v. Texas Dept. of Corrections State Jail

Div., 117 F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff was directed to pay the filing fee by

November 29, 2007, or in lieu thereof, to submit a new motion to

proceed without prepayment of fees so the Court could determine a

payment schedule for the payment of the $350.00 filing fee. (Doc.

17). Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the

Court’s Order within the prescribed time would result in the

dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and to obey the

Court’s Order. Notwithstanding the Court’s directive, Plaintiff

did not pay the filing fee nor submit a new motion to proceed

without prepayment of fees.

Accordingly, on December 17, 2007, the Court entered an Order

directing Plaintiff to show cause by January 7, 2008, why his 

Case 1:06-cv-00227-KD-B Document 22 Filed 01/22/08 Page 2 of 5
3

Section 1983 action should not be dismissed for his failure to

prosecute and to obey the Court’s Order of October 29, 2007. (Doc.

21). To date, Plaintiff has not responded in any manner to the

Court's Order (Doc. 21), nor has Plaintiff's copy of the Order been

returned to the Court.

Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order,

the undersigned concludes that Plaintiff has abandoned the

prosecution of this action. 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

Case 1:06-cv-00227-KD-B Document 22 Filed 01/22/08 Page 3 of 5
4

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).

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to this Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 18th day of January, 2008.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00227-KD-B Document 22 Filed 01/22/08 Page 4 of 5
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of this

document, file specific written objections with the clerk of court. 

Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the district

judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an attack, on

appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate judge. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)( c); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th

Cir. 1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B,

1982)(en banc). The procedure for challenging the findings and

recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out in more detail

in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a

“Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days after being served with a

copy of the recommendation, unless a different time is

established by order. The statement of objection shall

specify those portions of the recommendation to which

objection is made and the basis for the objection. The

objecting party shall submit to the district judge, at

the time of filing the objection, a brief setting forth

the party’s arguments that the magistrate judge’s

recommendation should be reviewed de novo and a different

disposition made. It is insufficient to submit only a

copy of the original brief submitted to the magistrate

judge, although a copy of the original brief may be

submitted or referred to and incorporated into the brief

in support of the objection. Failure to submit a brief

in support of the objection may be deemed an abandonment

of the objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a

Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can

be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the magistrate

judge finds that the tapes and original records in this action are

adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to

this recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is

advised that a judicial determination that transcription is

necessary is required before the United States will pay the cost of

the transcript.

Case 1:06-cv-00227-KD-B Document 22 Filed 01/22/08 Page 5 of 5