Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00712/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00712-0/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

W. T. HUNT, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 04-0712-CG-B

MARC SONNIER, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4), and is now

before the Court due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and

failure to obey the Court’s Order entered on February 23, 2005

(Doc. 5).

Plaintiff filed the instant § 1983 action on November 8,

2004 while incarcerated at the Mobile County Metro Jail (Doc.

1). Subsequent thereto, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of

Address (Doc. 4), which reflects that he is no longer

incarcerated. Because Plaintiff was a prisoner when he

commenced this action, he is obligated to the pay the entire

$150.00 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); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). While

Case 1:04-cv-00712-CG-B Document 6 Filed 06/08/05 Page 1 of 5
2

incarcerated, Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis without paying a partial filing fee. However, when

Plaintiff notified the Court of a change in his address (Doc.

4), the Court, in an Order dated February 23, 2005, observed

that Plaintiff’s new address indicated that he was no longer

incarcerated, and accordingly ordered Plaintiff to file, by

March 25, 2005, a new motion to proceed without prepayment of

fees so the Court could determine a payment schedule for paying

the filing fee, or to pay the $150.00 filing fee. (Doc. 5).

Plaintiff was warned 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. Plaintiff’s copy of the Court’s February 23, 2005 Order

has not been returned to the Court, nor has Plaintiff contacted

the Court since the Order was entered. 

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

the undersigned concludes that Plaintiff has abandoned the

prosecution of his 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) 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

Case 1:04-cv-00712-CG-B Document 6 Filed 06/08/05 Page 2 of 5
3

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 the 8th day of June, 2005.

S/ Sonja F. Bivins 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00712-CG-B Document 6 Filed 06/08/05 Page 3 of 5
4

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION, AND

FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

l. 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 this 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); Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). 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 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. Transcript (applicable Where Proceedings Tape Recorded).

Case 1:04-cv-00712-CG-B Document 6 Filed 06/08/05 Page 4 of 5
5

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 case 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 1:04-cv-00712-CG-B Document 6 Filed 06/08/05 Page 5 of 5