Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00575/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00575-0/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 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

SHERMAN McBRYAR, #123355, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-575-TMH

 ) [WO]

GARY HETZEL, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On July 10, 2012 the court granted Plaintiff fifteen days to file with the Clerk either

the $350.00 filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by

an affidavit in support thereof. (Doc. No. 3.) Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to

comply with the July 10 order would result in a Recommendation that his complaint be

dismissed. (Id.) The requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has not provided the court with

either the filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Consequently, the

court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate for Plaintiff’s failures to comply

with the orders of the court and to prosecute this action.

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

be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to comply with the orders of this

court and to prosecute this action.

 It is further

ORDERED that on or before September 10, 2012 Plaintiff may file an objection to

the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Case 2:12-cv-00575-TMH-CSC Document 4 Filed 08/27/12 Page 1 of 2
Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. 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 27 day of August, 2012. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 2:12-cv-00575-TMH-CSC Document 4 Filed 08/27/12 Page 2 of 2