Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00526/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00526-0/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM MICHAEL DEXTER, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 04-0526-WS-B

MOBILE COUNTY, :

Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, who is in the custody of the Alabama Department

of Mental Health and Mental Retardation and is proceeding pro

se, filed the instant case alleging violations under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (Doc. 1). This case 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 20, 2005, it is recommended that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. 

Plaintiff filed this Section 1983 action while incarcerated

at Searcy Mental Hospital (Doc. 1). After a review of the

record, Plaintiff was directed to re-file his Complaint and his

Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees on this Court’s

forms (Doc. 3). Plaintiff filed a new complaint that was

deficient and failed to file an amended motion to proceed

Case 1:04-cv-00526-WS-B Document 10 Filed 09/15/05 Page 1 of 5
1 Plaintiff also filed a motion to appoint counsel (Doc.

4), which is DENIED.

without prepayment of fees (Doc. 5)1. In an Order dated June 29,

2005, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint

and a motion to proceed without the prepayment of fees, or to

pay the $150.00 filing fee. Plaintiff was cautioned that the

failure to comply with the Court’s Order would result in the

dismissal of his Complaint. On July 18, 2005, Plaintiff filed

an amended complaint (Doc. 7), and a motion seeking an extension

of time to pay the filing fee and appointment of counsel (Doc.

8). On July 20, 2005, the undersigned issued an Order extending

the time for payment of the filing fee until August 5, 2005, and

denying Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 9).

Plaintiff was again cautioned that failure to comply with the

Court’s Order would result in the dismissal of his complaint. 

Notwithstanding the Court’s Orders, Plaintiff has not filed

the motion to proceed without prepayment of fees as directed or

paid the $150.00 filing fee. Due to Plaintiff's failure to

comply with the Court's Order and 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

Case 1:04-cv-00526-WS-B Document 10 Filed 09/15/05 Page 2 of 5
(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

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 15th day of September, 2005.

 S/SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00526-WS-B Document 10 Filed 09/15/05 Page 3 of 5
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.

Case 1:04-cv-00526-WS-B Document 10 Filed 09/15/05 Page 4 of 5
S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00526-WS-B Document 10 Filed 09/15/05 Page 5 of 5