Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_14-cv-00945/USCOURTS-almd-1_14-cv-00945-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

CALVIN COCHRAN, #292 258, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-945-MHT 

 ) [WO] 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ) 

TRAWICK, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on September 14, 2014. On February 17, 

2015, the court directed Defendants to file an answer and written report addressing Plaintiff's 

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

written report on April 29, 2015, which contained relevant evidentiary materials refuting the 

allegations in the complaint. Doc. No. 24. Upon review of this report, the court issued an order 

directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ answer and written report. Doc. No. 25. The 

order advised Plaintiff that his failure to respond to the 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. at 2. The order “specifically cautioned [Plaintiff] that [his failure] to file a response in 

compliance with the directives of this order” would result in the dismissal of this civil action. Id. 

The time allotted Plaintiff for filing a response in compliance with the directives of the 

court’s April 30, 2015, order expired on May 21, 2015. As of the present date, Plaintiff has 

failed to file a response in opposition to Defendants’ written report. The court, therefore, 

concludes this case should be dismissed. 

Case 1:14-cv-00945-MHT-CSC Document 29 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 3
The court has reviewed the file to determine whether a drastic measure less than 

dismissal is appropriate. After such review, dismissal is the proper course of action. Plaintiff is 

an indigent individual. The imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against him 

would be ineffectual. Plaintiff’s inaction in the face of Defendants’ report and evidentiary 

materials refuting the claims raised suggests he does not seek to proceed with this case. It, 

therefore, appears that any additional effort by this court to secure his compliance would be 

unavailing. Consequently, the court concludes that 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 (11th Cir. 1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for 

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

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

1983 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). 

For the above stated reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge 

that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. 

 It is further 

 ORDERED that on or before November 2, 2015, the parties shall file any objections to 

this Recommendation. A party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal 

conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or 

general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate 

Judge's findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and 

factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of the party to challenge on 

Case 1:14-cv-00945-MHT-CSC Document 29 Filed 10/19/15 Page 2 of 3
appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted or 

adopted by the 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 the 19th day of October, 2015. 

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

 CHARLES S. COODY 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 1:14-cv-00945-MHT-CSC Document 29 Filed 10/19/15 Page 3 of 3