Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00071/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00071-0/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 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM SHANE COWART, *

 *

Plaintiff, *

 *

vs. * CIVIL ACTION 04-00071-KD-B

 *

RYAN ROBINSON, et al., *

 *

Defendants. *

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed the instant action

alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while he was incarcerated

in an Alabama prison facility. In an Order dated September 8,

2005, the Court set this action for a May 2006, trial. (Doc. 36).

In response, Plaintiff informed the Court that his expected release

date was September 2006, and requested that the trial be stayed

until after his release. (Doc. 45). Plaintiff also requested

appointment of counsel. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request to

delay the trial, and directed Plaintiff to notify Court of his

release, and desire to continue the litigation. (Doc. 47). The

Court denied Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel, and

explained that Plaintiff’s pleading imparted an understanding of

the law as it pertains to his claims. 

On October 6, 2006, Plaintiff informed the Court of his

release, of his new address, and of his desire to continue with

this litigation. (Doc. 61). Subsequent thereto, the Court issued

an Order setting this case for a scheduling conference on February

Case 1:04-cv-00071-KD-B Document 68 Filed 02/05/07 Page 1 of 4
2

2, 2007. (Doc. 66). Plaintiff was expressly cautioned that failure

to attend the conference may be viewed as abandonment of

prosecution and might result in the dismissal of his action.

Plaintiff was also provided a copy of the Court’s Pro Se Litigation

Guide. Plaintiff failed to appear for the February 2nd conference,

and also failed to notify the Court of any scheduling conflicts or

other obstacles that made it difficult or impossible for him to

attend. Moreover, his copy of the January 12, 2007, Order and the

Pro Se Litigation Guide have not been returned to the Court. 

Given that this action was previously stayed at Plaintiff’s

request, until after his release from prison, and that he failed to

appear, without explanation, for the scheduling conference, the

undersigned concludes that Plaintiff has abandoned this litigation.

He has failed to comply with the Court's Order and to prosecute

this action. 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

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);

Case 1:04-cv-00071-KD-B Document 68 Filed 02/05/07 Page 2 of 4
3

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 this Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 2nd day of February 2007.

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00071-KD-B Document 68 Filed 02/05/07 Page 3 of 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); 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).

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 1:04-cv-00071-KD-B Document 68 Filed 02/05/07 Page 4 of 4