Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00708/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00708-0/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

DAVID K. CHANDLER, #242 005, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-708-MHT

 ) [WO]

DENNIS MEEKS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a state inmate, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on August 26, 2016. Plaintiff 

did not submit the $350 filing fee or $50 administrative fee and, instead, filed a document seeking 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis before this court. Doc. 2. In support of this request, Plaintiff

provided financial information necessary to determine the average monthly balance in and the 

average monthly deposits to his inmate account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the 

filing of this complaint.

After a thorough review of the financial information provided by Plaintiff and pursuant to 

the requisite provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A), the court determined that Plaintiff owed an 

initial partial filing fee of $7.73. Doc. 3. The court ordered that Plaintiff pay the initial partial 

filing fee on or before October 6, 2016. Id. In addition, this order specifically informed Plaintiff

“that it is his responsibility to submit the appropriate paperwork to the prison account clerk 

for transmission of his funds to this court for payment of the initial partial filing fee.” Id. 

(emphasis in original). The order also “advised [Plaintiff] that if he is unable to procure the initial 

partial filing fee within the time allowed by this court he must inform the court of such inability 

and request an extension of time within which to file the fee.” Id. Moreover, the court specifically 

Case 2:16-cv-00708-MHT-TFM Document 6 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 3
cautioned Plaintiff that failure to pay the requisite fee within the time allowed by the court would 

result in a Recommendation “that his case be dismissed and such dismissal will not be reconsidered 

unless exceptional circumstances exist.” Id. The court granted Plaintiff an extension to and 

including October 20, 2016, to submit payment of the initial partial filing fee. Doc. No. 5. 

Plaintiff has failed to pay the initial partial filing fee within the time allowed by the court. 

The court, therefore, concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 

835, 837 (11th Cir.1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for 

failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232 F. App’x 

924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate’s § 1983 action 

for failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with court’s prior order directing 

amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply). 

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

DISMISSED without prejudice for failure of Plaintiff to pay the initial partial filing fee in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A) as ordered by this court. It is further

ORDERED that on or before February 14, 2017, Plaintiff may file an objection to the 

Recommendation. Plaintiff must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in 

the Recommendation to which objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will 

not be considered. 

Failure to file a written objection to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations 

in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo

determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and 

waives the right of the party to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjectedto factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of 

Case 2:16-cv-00708-MHT-TFM Document 6 Filed 01/27/17 Page 2 of 3
plain error or manifest injustice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, 

Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).

DONE, this 27th day of January 2017.

/s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00708-MHT-TFM Document 6 Filed 01/27/17 Page 3 of 3