Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00750/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00750-0/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

NATHAN KELLEY, #194673, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-750-TMH

) [WO]

)

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al. )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case is before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed by Nathan Kelley

["Kelley"], a state inmate, in which he challenges the adequacy of the law library and attacks

the general conditions of confinement at the Easterling Correctional Facility. At the time he

filed this complaint, Kelley did not pay the requisite $350.00 filing fee nor did he submit an

affidavit in support of a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Thus, the court did

not have the information necessary to determine whether Kelley should be allowed to

proceed in forma pauperis in this case and therefore entered an order requiring that Kelley

provide the court with such information on or before September 30, 2011. Order of

September 13, 2011 - Court Doc. No. 2 at 1-2. The court specifically cautioned Kelley that

failure to comply with the directives of this order would result in a recommendation that this

case be dismissed. Id. at 2.

As of the present date, Kelley has filed nothing in response to the aforementioned

order. The court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed for such failure.

Case 2:11-cv-00750-TMH-CSC Document 3 Filed 10/14/11 Page 1 of 2
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case

be dismissed without prejudice for Kelley's failure to provide the court with necessary

financial information in compliance with the orders of this court. 

It is further

ORDERED that on or before October 28, 2011, the parties may file objections to the 

Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. 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 (5th Cir. 1982); Stein v.

Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d

1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc) (adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the

former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981).

Done this 14th day of October, 2011.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:11-cv-00750-TMH-CSC Document 3 Filed 10/14/11 Page 2 of 2