Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00524/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00524-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE ARTHUR SULLEN, :

Petitioner :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-0524-WS-M

GWENDOLYN MOSLEY, :

Respondent. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se,

filed an amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 13),

together with a Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees

(Doc. 14). This action, which has been referred to the

undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Local Rule

72.2(c)(4), and is before the Court for Petitioner’s failure to

prosecute and to obey the Court's Order. 

On January 27, 2006, the Court ordered Petitioner to pay the

$5.00 filing fee within fifteen days (Doc. 15). The due date was

February 13, 2006. Petitioner was warned that his failure to

comply with the Order within the prescribed time would result in

the dismissal of his action. Petitioner has not paid the filing

fee by , nor has he otherwise responded to the Court's Order.

Due to Petitioner’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

Case 1:05-cv-00524-WS-M Document 16 Filed 03/21/06 Page 1 of 3
2

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. 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).

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

Case 1:05-cv-00524-WS-M Document 16 Filed 03/21/06 Page 2 of 3
3

(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.

DONE this 21st day of March, 2006.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00524-WS-M Document 16 Filed 03/21/06 Page 3 of 3