Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00298/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00298-1/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

TIMOTHY BERNARD EDWARD *

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 2:06-CV-298-MHT

 (WO)

ANTHONY CLARK, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _______________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on April 4, 2006. On April 12, 2006

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 reports on May 31, 2006 and July 19, 2006 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’ written reports. (Doc. No. 20.)

Plaintiff was advised that his failure to respond to Defendants’ written reports 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. 

After the court granted Plaintiff two extensions of time to submit his opposition, the

Case 2:06-cv-00298-MHT-SRW Document 33 Filed 01/11/07 Page 1 of 3
2

time allotted Plaintiff for the filing of a response expired on November 30, 2006. As of the

present date, Plaintiff has filed nothing in opposition to Defendants’ written reports as

required by order entered July 21, 2006. 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 monetary or

other punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual. Additionally, Plaintiff has

exhibited a lack of respect for this court and its authority as he 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 (11th Cir. 1995). 

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 are DIRECTED to file any objections to the

Case 2:06-cv-00298-MHT-SRW Document 33 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 3
3

Recommendation on or before January 26, 2007. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is

objecting. 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 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

DONE, this 11th day of January, 2007.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00298-MHT-SRW Document 33 Filed 01/11/07 Page 3 of 3