Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00374/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00374-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL TYSON LEE, #240003, ) 

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CASE NO.: 2:15-CV-374-MHT-GMB 

)

PRESTON HUGHES - COVINGTON )

COUNTY JAIL ADMINISTRATOR, )

)

 Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on an amended 

complaint filed by Michael Tyson Lee (“Lee”), a former inmate, challenging the 

conditions of confinement to which he was subjected during a previous term of 

incarceration at the Covington County Jail.

Based on a review of the file and under the circumstances of this case, the court 

issued an order directing Lee to “advise the court of whether he seeks to proceed on his 

claims. . . .” Order of November 17, 2015 - Doc. No. 18. Lee was specifically advised 

that his failure to respond to this order would result in the dismissal of this case. Id. The 

time allotted Lee for filing a response in compliance with the directives of this order 

expired on December 1, 2015. Id. As of the present date, Lee has filed no response to 

the order. The court therefore concludes that this case should be dismissed.

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

dismissal is appropriate. After such review, it is clear that dismissal of this case is the 

Case 2:15-cv-00374-MHT-GMB Document 19 Filed 12/09/15 Page 1 of 3
2

proper course of action at this time. Lee is an indigent individual. Thus, the imposition 

of monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual. Additionally, 

Lee’s inaction in the face of the show cause order indicates a loss of interest in the 

continued prosecution of this case. It therefore appears that any additional effort by this 

court to secure Lee’s compliance would be unavailing and an inefficient use of this 

court’s limited judicial resources. Consequently, the court concludes that the plaintiff’s 

failure to comply with the orders of this court warrants dismissal. Moon v. Newsome, 863 

F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding that, as a general rule, where a litigant has been 

forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion).

For the above stated reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate 

Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for the plaintiff’s failure to comply 

with the orders of this court. 

It is further ORDERED that on or before December 23, 2015 the parties may file 

objections to the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the 

factual findings and legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to 

which the plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be 

considered by the District Court.

Failure to file written objections 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 factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive 

the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual 

and legal conclusions” except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of 

Case 2:15-cv-00374-MHT-GMB Document 19 Filed 12/09/15 Page 2 of 3
3

justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 

1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).

DONE this 9th day of December, 2015.

 /s/ Gray M. Borden 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00374-MHT-GMB Document 19 Filed 12/09/15 Page 3 of 3