Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00487/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00487-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID WESLEY THORNTON, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

vs. * CIVIL ACTION NO.: 15-00487-CG-B

*

NURSE BLAKE, et al., *

*

Defendants. *

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff David Wesley Thornton, an Alabama prison inmate, filed 

a complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a motion to 

proceed without prepayment of fees (Docs. 1, 2) on October 1, 2015. 

This case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(2)(R)for 

appropriate action. Because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute and 

to comply with the Court’s Order dated October 6, 2015 (Doc. 3), it 

is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

Upon review of Plaintiff’s motion, it was determined that the 

motion was not signed by a prison official, and did not include a 

financial statement containing all transactions in Plaintiff’s 

prisoner account for the six (6) months immediately preceding the 

date of the filing of his complaint. Accordingly, the Court issued 

an order directing Plaintiff to file a conforming motion. Plaintiff 

was expressly directed to file, by November 6, 2015, a motion to 

Case 1:15-cv-00487-CG-B Document 4 Filed 06/17/16 Page 1 of 4
2

proceed without prepayment of fees that was signed by a prison official 

and included a financial a statement containing all transactions in 

his prisoner account for the six (6) months immediately preceding 

the date of the filing of his complaint. Plaintiff was cautioned that 

if he failed to timely comply with the order, this action would be 

dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to obey the 

Court’s Order1. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s 

Order dated October 6, 2015. Nor has his copy of the Order been returned 

to the Court. Accordingly, at this juncture, it appears that 

Plaintiff has lost interest in this litigation. 

Due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order of 

October 6, 2015 (Doc. 3), and upon consideration of the alternatives 

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., 

 

1 The Court also observed that Plaintiff is well aware of the 

requirement that a certified financial statement be included with 

a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees as his complaint in 

Thornton v. Mobile County Metro Jail, Civil Action No. 15-00125-KD-N 

(S.D. Ala), was dismissed on June 2, 2015 after he failed to comply

with the Court’s order directing him to submit the institutional

record.(Doc. 3 at 2, n.1).

Case 1:15-cv-00487-CG-B Document 4 Filed 06/17/16 Page 2 of 4
3

41 F.3d 1454, 1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 

93 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, Ballard v. Volunteers of America, 

493 U.S. 1084, 110 S.Ct. 1145, 107 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1990); 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. 1983); 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. 1993)(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. GenLR 72(c). The parties should note that under 

Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a 

magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report 

and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

Case 1:15-cv-00487-CG-B Document 4 Filed 06/17/16 Page 3 of 4
4

§ 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district 

court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions 

if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the 

consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a 

proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain 

error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1.

In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific 

finding or specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An 

objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the 

briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific.

DONE this 17th day of June, 2016. 

 /S/SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00487-CG-B Document 4 Filed 06/17/16 Page 4 of 4