Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00081/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00081-0/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

ROBERT TAYLOR, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-00081-KD-N

MEDICAL STAFF, :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff filed the instant case alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a Motion 

for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Docs. 4, 6). This case was referred to the 

undersigned Magistrate Judge 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 keep the Court apprised 

of his address, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

On August 4, 2015, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to file a second 

amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by September 3, 2015 (Doc. 8). On August 17, 

2015, the order was returned as undeliverable (Doc. 9). Plaintiff has not advised the Court of a 

change of address, and the Court has been unable to locate a current address for him. Due to 

this failure, the Court construes the lack of a response as an indication that Plaintiff is no longer 

interested in proceeding with his action.

As a consequence of Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action, and upon consideration of 

the alternatives that are 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 

Case 1:15-cv-00081-KD-N Document 10 Filed 09/15/15 Page 1 of 2
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).

Notice of Right to File Objections

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the 

manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything 

in it must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific 

written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P.

72(b); S.D. ALA. L.R. 72.4. In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific 

finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, 

and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation where the 

disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference 

or refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific.

DONE this 14th day of September, 2015.

 s/KATHERINE P. NELSON 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 1:15-cv-00081-KD-N Document 10 Filed 09/15/15 Page 2 of 2