Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_06-cv-00699/USCOURTS-almd-1_06-cv-00699-1/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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MUHAMMAD AL-AMEEN, )

f.k.a., TERRY D. RIVERS, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 1:06-CV-699-WHA

) [WO]

)

NURSE SPEIGNER, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On August 8, 2006, Muhammad Al-Ameen [“Al-Ameen”], a county inmate, filed

this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. On December 15, 2006, this court entered an order, a copy

of which the Clerk mailed to Al-Ameen. Postal authorities returned this order because AlAmeen no longer resided at the address he provided for service. In the order of procedure

entered in this case, the court specifically instructed the plaintiff to immediately inform the

court of any new address. See Order of August 14, 2006 - Court Document No. 4 at 5. As

Al-Ameen had failed to comply with this directive, the court entered an orderrequiring “that

. . . [o]n or before January 18, 2007, the plaintiff . . . show cause why this case should not

be dismissed for his failure to comply with the orders of this court and his failure to

adequately prosecute this action.” Order of January 8, 2007 - Court Doc. No. 11 at 1. The

Case 1:06-cv-00699-WHA-CSC Document 12 Filed 01/23/07 Page 1 of 3
2

court cautioned Al-Ameen that failure to comply with such order would result in a

recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. at 2. The time allowed Al-Ameen for

filing a response has expired and he has filed nothing in response to the aforementioned

order. The court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case

be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute this action and his

failure to comply with the orders of this court. 

It is further

ORDERED that on or before February 5, 2007 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

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

Case 1:06-cv-00699-WHA-CSC Document 12 Filed 01/23/07 Page 2 of 3
3

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 23 day of January, 2007. rd

 /s/ Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES. COODY .

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:06-cv-00699-WHA-CSC Document 12 Filed 01/23/07 Page 3 of 3