Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00049/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00049-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ERIC BLANDING, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-00049-KD-B

KIM THOMAS, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Eric Blanding, an Alabama prison inmate 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 Blanding has failed to prosecute and 

to comply with the Court’s Order dated February 5, 2015, it is 

recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

Blanding's complaint (Doc. 1) and declaration in support of 

request to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) were not filed on the 

Court’s required forms. Accordingly, in an order dated February 5, 

2015, this Court directed Blanding to file his complaint on the 

Court’s form for prisoner 1983 actions, and his motion on the Court’s 

current form for motions to proceed without prepayment of fees no 

Case 1:15-cv-00049-KD-B Document 4 Filed 03/27/15 Page 1 of 3
2

later than March 5, 20151 (Doc. 3). 

Blanding was cautioned that if he elected not to refile his 

complaint and motion (or pay the filing fee in lieu thereof), this 

action would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute 

and to obey the Court's Order. The Court also directed the Clerk to 

forward to Blanding a copy of the requisite forms along with a copy 

of the Order. To date, Blanding has not responded in any manner to 

the Court's Order (Doc. 3), nor has his copy of the Order and forms 

been returned to the Court. 

Due to Blanding’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 (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. 

 1

Plaintiff was also advised that in lieu of filing a new motion 

to proceed without payment of fees, he could pay the $400.00 filing 

fee by March 5, 2015 (Doc. 3).

Case 1:15-cv-00049-KD-B Document 4 Filed 03/27/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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).

Notice of Right to File Objections

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all 

parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this 

recommendation or anything in it must, within fourteen (14) days of 

the date of service of this document, file specific written objections 

with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72(b); S.D. ALA. L.R. 72.4. In order to be specific, an objection 

must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which 

objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify 

the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation where 

the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely 

incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

Magistrate Judge is not specific.

DONE this 26th day of March, 2015.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00049-KD-B Document 4 Filed 03/27/15 Page 3 of 3