Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00215/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00215-4/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

DEMON VICTORELL SLATER, )

AIS #177985, )

 )

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-215-WHA

)

LT. WOODS, et al., )

 )

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a complaint filed by

Demon Victorell Slater (“Slater”), a former state inmate, in which he challenges the

constitutionality of actions taken against him in July of 2015 at the Easterling Correctional 

Facility. The order of procedure entered in this case instructed Slater to immediately 

inform the court of any new address. Doc. No 4 at 5. The record demonstrates that Slater

received a copy of this order. 

Orders entered by the court in Slater v. Askew, Civil Action No. 2:16-CV-672-

MHT-GMB, and mailed to Slater by the Clerk were returned to the court because Slater

was not at the last address he had provided for service.1 In light of the foregoing and as 

Slater had not provided the court with a correct address as directed by the order of 

procedure, the court entered an order requiring that on or before January 31, 2017 Slater

 1

The last address provided to the court by the plaintiff is Easterling Correctional Facility. A recent search of the 

inmate database maintained by the Alabama Department of Corrections, http://doc.state.al.us/InmateSearch, indicates 

that Demon Victorell Slater is no longer incarcerated within the state prison system. 

Case 2:16-cv-00215-WHA-TFM Document 58 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 3
“show cause why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the orders 

of this court and his failure to adequately prosecute this action.” Doc. No. 57 at 1-2. This 

order specifically advised Slater that the instant case could not proceed if his whereabouts 

remained unknown and cautioned him that his failure to comply with its directives would 

result in the dismissal of this case. Id. The court has received no response from Slater to 

the aforementioned order nor has he provided the court with his current address as required 

by the order of procedure. 

As is clear from the foregoing, Slater has failed to comply with the directives of the 

orders entered by this court. In addition, this case cannot properly proceed in his absence. 

It likewise appears that since his release from prison Slater is not interested in the 

prosecution of this case. The court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. 

See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (As a general rule, where a 

litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of 

discretion.).

 Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case 

be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to comply with the orders of this 

court and his failure to properly prosecute this action. It is further 

ORDERED that on or before February 17, 2017 the parties may file objections to 

the Recommendation. A party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal 

conclusions in the Recommendation to which the objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, 

or general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the 

Case 2:16-cv-00215-WHA-TFM Document 58 Filed 02/03/17 Page 2 of 3
Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of 

legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of the party 

to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal 

conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error 

or manifest injustice. 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 3rd day of February, 2017.

/s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00215-WHA-TFM Document 58 Filed 02/03/17 Page 3 of 3