Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_07-cv-00629/USCOURTS-almd-3_07-cv-00629-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

 _____________________________

MITCHELL REESE *

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 3:07-CV-629-MHT

 (WO)

OPELIKA POLICE DEPARTMENT *

Defendant. *

 _____________________________ 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On July 11, 2007 the court entered an order granting Plaintiff twenty-one (21) days

to file an amendment to his complaint. (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure

to comply with the July 11 order would result in a Recommendation that his complaint be

dismissed. (Id.) The requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has not complied with the order

of the court. Consequently, the court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate for

Plaintiff’s failures to prosecute this action and comply with the orders of the court.

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

be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action and comply

with the orders of this court.

It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before September 5, 2007. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects.

Case 3:07-cv-00629-MHT-WC Document 5 Filed 08/23/07 Page 1 of 2
2

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 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein th

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

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done, this 23rd day of August 2007.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00629-MHT-WC Document 5 Filed 08/23/07 Page 2 of 2