Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00221/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00221-0/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

CARLOS WILLIAMS, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-00221-WS-B

 :

D.O.C. Bay Minette Jail, :

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 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 11, 2005,

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

Plaintiff requested and was granted permission to proceed without

prepayment of fees. (Docs. 2, 3). After a review of Plaintiff’s

complaint (Doc. 1) and supplemental complaint (Doc. 11), the Court

entered an Order directing Plaintiff to re-file his complaint on

the Court’s form by November 14, 2005. (Doc. 13). Subsequent

thereto, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address, wherein he

notified the Court that he had been transferred to Baldwin County

Case 1:05-cv-00221-WS-B Document 23 Filed 11/08/07 Page 1 of 4
2

Jail. (Doc. 14). On November 22, 2005, Plaintiff filed a new

complaint. (Doc. 17). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a second Notice

of Change of Address on August 1, 2006. (Doc. 21). 

In an Order dated August 3, 2007 (Doc. 22), the Court observed

that Plaintiff's latest Notice reflected that he had been released

from custody. The Court further observed that because Plaintiff

initiated this action while he was a prisoner, he remained

obligated to pay the $250.00 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 September 4, 2007, or in lieu

thereof, to submit a new motion to proceed without prepayment of

fees so that the Court could determine a payment schedule for the

payment of the remainder of the $250.00 filing fee. (Doc. 22).

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.

 To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s August 3,

2007 Order, nor has his copy of the Court’s Order has not 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 available to the Court, it is recommended that

this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b)

Case 1:05-cv-00221-WS-B Document 23 Filed 11/08/07 Page 2 of 4
3

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 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 the Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 8th day of November, 2007.

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00221-WS-B Document 23 Filed 11/08/07 Page 3 of 4
4

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). 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, in part, 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. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing party may

submit a brief opposing the objection within ten (10) days of being

served with a copy of the statement of objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72;

SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

3. 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.

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00221-WS-B Document 23 Filed 11/08/07 Page 4 of 4