Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_10-cv-00142/USCOURTS-alsd-1_10-cv-00142-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

GLYNIS BETHEL, : 

 Plaintiff, : 

vs. : Civil Action 10-0142-WS-C 

JUDY A. NEWCOMB, et al., : 

 Defendants. : 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 

 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

18 U.S.C. § 242. Her action was referred to the undersigned for appropriate action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(1). Upon review the 

Court’s file in this action, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without 

prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s order and to prosecute this action. 

 Because plaintiff filed a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees (Doc. 2), the 

Court screened plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1), as it is required to do under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2002) (applying § 1915(e) to non-prisoner 

actions). During the screening of plaintiff’s complaint, the Court discovered that the complaint 

was not signed and that information was needed to clarify the complaint. (Doc. 5). Therefore, 

on April 23, 2010, the Court ordered plaintiff, on or before May 25, 2010, to sign and return her 

complaint to the Court and to answer the interrogatories that the Court was propounding to her. 

Case 1:10-cv-00142-WS-C Document 6 Filed 06/21/10 Page 1 of 4
2 

(Id.). Plaintiff was warned that her failure to comply with the Court’s order within the prescribed 

time would result in the dismissal of her action for failure to prosecute and to obey the Court’s 

order. (Id.). To date, plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order, nor has she filed another 

document in this action.1 

 Due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order and to prosecute this 

action, the Court recommends that, through its inherent powers, this action be dismissed 

without prejudice. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1389, 8 

L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (“The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of 

prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power’ governed not by rule or 

statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to 

achieved the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”); Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 

479, 483 (11th Cir.) (The court “has the inherent ability to dismiss a claim in light of its 

authority to enforce its orders and provide for the efficient disposition of litigation.”), 

cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1228 (2007); see generally Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V 

Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337-38 (11th Cir. 2005) (discussing dismissals pursuant to the 

court’s inherent power and noting cases where this type of dismissal has been conflated 

 

1

 In a prior action, Bethel v. Mack, CA 10-0099-KD-M (S.D. Ala. June 2, 2010), filed on 

March 1, 2010, plaintiff appears to be complaining about the same state-court action that she 

complains of in the present action. In the prior action the Court propounded interrogatories to 

plaintiff on March 25, 2010. (Doc. 3). Plaintiff’s answers were filed on April 23, 2010. (Doc. 

5). A Report and Recommendation was entered on May 14, 2010, recommending the dismissal 

without prejudice of her federal claims, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and of her statelaw claims. (Doc. 7). Plaintiff filed an objection on May 27, 2010 (Doc. 8), (which is two days 

after the expiration of the period for complying with the present action’s order requiring that she 

sign and return the complaint and file answers to the Court’s interrogatories). After considering 

plaintiff’s objection, the District Judge adopted the report and recommendation and ordered the 

action’s dismissal on June 2, 2010. (Doc. 10). 

Case 1:10-cv-00142-WS-C Document 6 Filed 06/21/10 Page 2 of 4
3 

with a dismissal under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). 

 The instructions that follow the undersigned’s signature contain important 

information regarding objections to the report and recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge. 

DONE this 21st day of June, 2010. 

 s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

 

 

Case 1:10-cv-00142-WS-C Document 6 Filed 06/21/10 Page 3 of 4
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 

fourteen (14) 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 days2 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 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. 

 

 

 2

 Effective December 1, 2009, the time for filing written objections was extended to “14 

days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). 

Case 1:10-cv-00142-WS-C Document 6 Filed 06/21/10 Page 4 of 4