Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00194/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00194-0/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 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES SPARKS, #219274, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:14-CV-194-MEF

) [WO]

WARDEN CHRISTOPHER GORDY, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on March 20, 2014. On April 14, 2014,

the court directed Defendants to file an answer and written report addressing Plaintiff's

claims for relief. In compliance with the court’s order, Defendant submitted an answer and

written report on May 27, 2014, which contained relevant evidentiary materials refuting the

allegations presented in the complaint. The court then issued an order directing Plaintiff to

file a response to Defendants’ answer and written report. Doc. No. 5. Plaintiff was advised

that his failure to respond to Defendants’ written report 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). 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.

The time allotted Plaintiff for the filing of a response expired on June 18, 2014. As

Case 2:14-cv-00194-WHA-TFM Document 11 Filed 07/17/14 Page 1 of 3
of the present date, Plaintiff has filed nothing in opposition to Defendant’s answer and

written report as required by order filed May 28, 2014. In light of the foregoing, the court

concludes that this case should be dismissed.

The court has reviewed the file to determine whether a sanction less drastic than

dismissal is appropriate. After such review, the undersigned concludes dismissal of this case

is the proper sanction. Plaintiff is an indigent state inmate. The imposition of monetary or

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

failed to comply with the directives of the orders entered. It is, therefore, apparent that any

additional effort by this court to secure Plaintiff’s compliance would be unavailing.

Consequently, the court concludes Plaintiff’s abandonment of his claims and his failure to

comply with an order of this court warrant dismissal. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837

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

th

to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232 Fed. Appx.

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

th

action for failure to file an amendment to complaint in compliance with court’s prior order

directing amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply); also 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).

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

this case be DISMISSED without prejudice.

2

Case 2:14-cv-00194-WHA-TFM Document 11 Filed 07/17/14 Page 2 of 3
It is further

ORDERED that on or before July 31, 2014, the parties may file an objection to the

Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or

general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised this

Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in

the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar a 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 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein

th

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

th

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

th

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

September 30, 1981.

Done, this 17 day of July 2014.

th

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:14-cv-00194-WHA-TFM Document 11 Filed 07/17/14 Page 3 of 3