Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_12-cv-00983/USCOURTS-almd-1_12-cv-00983-2/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

 SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM P. TIDWELL, ) 

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:12-CV-983-TMH

) [WO]

GREG WARD (SHERIFF), et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on November 6, 2012. On November

16, 2012, the court directed Defendants to file an answer and written report addressing

Plaintiff's claims for relief. In compliance with the court’s order, Defendants submitted an

answer and written report on January 17, 2013, which contained relevant evidentiary

materials refuting the allegations presented in the instant complaint. The court then issued

an order directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ answer and written report. (Doc.

No. 21.) Plaintiff was advised that his failure to respond to Defendants’ answer and written

report would be treated by the court "as an abandonment of the claims set forth in the

complaint and as a failure to prosecute this action." (Id.) (emphasis in original). 

Additionally, Plaintiff was "specifically cautioned that [his failure] to file a response in

compliance with the directives of this order" would result in the dismissal of this case. 

(Id.) 

The time allotted Plaintiff for the filing of a response expired on February 7, 2013. 

Case 1:12-cv-00983-TMH-SRW Document 24 Filed 03/26/13 Page 1 of 3
As of the present date, Plaintiff has filed nothing in opposition to Defendants’ answer and

written report as required by order filed January 17, 2013. In light of the foregoing, the

court concludes that this case should be dismissed.

 The court has reviewed the file in this case to determine whether less drastic 

sanctions than dismissal are appropriate. After such review, it is clear that dismissal of this

case is the proper sanction. Plaintiff is an indigent state inmate. Thus, the imposition of

monetaryor other punitive sanctions against himwould be ineffectual. Additionally, Plaintiff

has failed to comply with the directives of the orders entered in this case. It is, therefore,

apparent that any additional effort by this court to secure Plaintiff’s compliance would be

unavailing. Consequently, the court concludes that Plaintiff’s abandonment of his claims,

his failure to comply with the orders of this court, and his failure to properly prosecute this

cause of action warrant dismissal of this case. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630

(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 (11 Cir. 1995). th

For the foregoing reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge

that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice.

 It is further

ORDERED that the parties mayfile an objection to the Recommendation on or before

April 9, 2013. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate

2

Case 1:12-cv-00983-TMH-SRW Document 24 Filed 03/26/13 Page 2 of 3
Judge's Recommendation to which a party 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 a written objection 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 26 day of March, 2013. th

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:12-cv-00983-TMH-SRW Document 24 Filed 03/26/13 Page 3 of 3