Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00008/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00008-2/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

ALBERT DAVIS, #175 321, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-8-GMB

) [WO] 

MONTGY. COUNTY DETENTION FAC., )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed on January 

6, 2016. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, the parties consented to have a 

United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case including trial and entry of 

final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings. Doc. 17. 

On January 11 and 13, 2016, 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 an answer and written report on March 7, 2016, and supplemental special reports on 

April 7, 2016, and May 9, 2016, all of which contained relevant evidentiary materials refuting the 

allegations in the complaint. Docs. 16, 18, 19, 21 & 28. Upon review of these reports, the court 

issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ answer and written report, as 

supplemented. Doc. 30. The order advised Plaintiff that his failure to respond to the 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.” Doc. 30 at 1. The order “specifically cautioned [Plaintiff] that [his 

failure] to file a response in compliance with the directives of this order” would result in the 

dismissal of this civil action. Doc. 30 at 1.

Case 2:16-cv-00008-GMB Document 33 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 2
2

The time allotted Plaintiff for filing a response in compliance with the directives of the 

court’s May 11, 2016, order expired on June 1, 2016. As of the present date, Plaintiff has failed 

to file a response in opposition to Defendants’ written report, as supplemented. The court,

therefore, concludes this case should be dismissed.

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

is appropriate. After this review, dismissal is the proper course of action. Plaintiff is an indigent 

individual, and thus the imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be 

ineffectual. Plaintiff’s inaction in the face of Defendants’ reports and evidentiary materials 

refuting his claims suggests he does not seek to proceed with this case. It therefore appears that 

any additional effort by this court to secure his compliance would be unavailing. Consequently, 

the court concludes that 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) 

(holding that, as a general rule, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of 

discretion where a litigant has been forewarned); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232 F. App’x 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). 

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned concludes this case shall be dismissed without 

prejudice. 

A separate judgment will follow.

DONE on this 3rd day of August, 2016.

/s/ Gray M. Borden 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:16-cv-00008-GMB Document 33 Filed 08/03/16 Page 2 of 2