Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00462/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00462-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CISSE IBRAHIM, :

Petitioner, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-0462-WS-C 

WARDEN ROBERT GAINES, et al., :

Respondents. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(Doc. 1). Petitioner, however, failed to pay the required filing fee of $5.00 or file a motion to

proceed without prepayment of fees. This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2, and is now before the Court for Petitioner's failure to

prosecute and to obey the Court's Order (Doc. 4).

The Court's Order dated September 20, 2006 (Doc. 4),ordered Petitioner by October 20,

2006, to file a motion to proceed without prepayment or to pay the filing fee. Petitioner was

warned that his failure to comply with the Court's Order within the prescribed time would result

in the dismissal of his action (Doc. 4). The Court’s Order has not been returned to the Court nor

has the Court, to date, heard from Petitioner since this Order was entered. 

Due to Petitioner's failure to comply with the Court's Order of September 20, 2006 (Doc.

4), and upon consideration of the alternatives 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

Case 2:06-cv-00462-WS-C Document 5 Filed 11/30/06 Page 1 of 3
2

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. 1983); 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. 1993)(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 the Report and

Recommendation.

DONE this 29th day of November, 2006.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00462-WS-C Document 5 Filed 11/30/06 Page 2 of 3
3

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 2:06-cv-00462-WS-C Document 5 Filed 11/30/06 Page 3 of 3