Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-01061/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-01061-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CEDRIC DAVIS, #233423, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:07-CV-1061-WKW 

) [WO]

)

CARTER DAVENPORT, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause of action is pending before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint

filed by Cedric Davis [“Davis”], a state inmate, on December 4, 2007. Pursuant to the

orders of this court, the defendants filed written reports supported by relevant evidentiary

materials in which they addressed the claims for relief presented by Davis. The reports and

evidentiary materials refute the self-serving, conclusory allegations presented in the instant

cause of action. The court thereafter issued an order directing Davis to file a response to

the written reports. Order of February 15, 2008 - Court Doc. No. 28. The order advised

Davis that his failure to respond to the 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. at 1 (emphasis in original). Additionally, the order

“specifically cautioned [the plaintiff] that [his failure] to file a response in compliance

with the directives of this order” would result in the dismissal of this civil action. Id.

The time allotted Davis for filing a response in compliance with this order expired on

Case 2:07-cv-01061-WKW-WC Document 29 Filed 03/17/08 Page 1 of 3
2

March 6, 2008. As of the present date, Davis has filed nothing in opposition to the

defendants’ written reports as required by the orders of this court. 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 a less drastic

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

case without prejudice is the proper course of action. Davis is an indigent state inmate.

Thus, the imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be

ineffectual. Additionally, Davis has exhibited a lack of deference 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 Davis’ compliance

would be unavailing. Consequently, the court concludes that the plaintiff’s abandonment

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

continue prosecution of this cause of action warrant dismissal of this case. 

 CONCLUSION

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

that this case be dismissed without prejudice. It is further 

ORDERED that on or before March 31, 2008 the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. 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

Case 2:07-cv-01061-WKW-WC Document 29 Filed 03/17/08 Page 2 of 3
3

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 advisements in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by

the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation 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 17 day of March, 2008. th

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-01061-WKW-WC Document 29 Filed 03/17/08 Page 3 of 3