Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00448/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00448-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

This action was removed from the Circuit Court of Mobile County,

Alabama; thus, the complaint is attached as an exhibit to the notice

of removal, which was filed on June 22, 2007. (Doc. 1).

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CARL HUNTER, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 07-00448-WS-B

DR. CHARLES E. SHERMAN, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed

a handwritten complaint alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

(Doc. 1, Ex. A).1 This action 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 comply with the Court’s Order dated July

17, 2007, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. 

Plaintiff filed this Section 1983 action while incarcerated at

Mobile County Work Release Center. (Doc. 1). After a review of

Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court entered an Order directing

Plaintiff to re-file his complaint on the Court’s form for a

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by August 5, 2007. (Doc. 5).

Plaintiff was advised that if he elected not to refile on the

Case 1:07-cv-00448-WS-B Document 8 Filed 01/22/08 Page 1 of 4
2

Court’s current forms for a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, his

action would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to

prosecute and to obey the Court's Order. Additionally, the Court

directed the Clerk to forward to Plaintiff a copy of the requisite

forms along with a copy of the July 17, 2007 Order. To date,

Plaintiff has not responded in any manner to the Court's Order

(Doc. 5), nor has his copy of the Order and forms been returned to

the Court. 

Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order,

his 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 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

Case 1:07-cv-00448-WS-B Document 8 Filed 01/22/08 Page 2 of 4
3

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 22nd day of January, 2008.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 1:07-cv-00448-WS-B Document 8 Filed 01/22/08 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 1:07-cv-00448-WS-B Document 8 Filed 01/22/08 Page 4 of 4