Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00433/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00433-0/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM L. CROSBY, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-00433-KD-B

TRAVIS GRANT, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 This matter has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4) for appropriate

action, and is now before the Court due to Plaintiff’s failure to

prosecute and to comply with the Court’s Orders. 

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed

a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on outdated forms. (Doc. 2). 

In an Order dated August 11, 2006, this Court directed Plaintiff to

refile his complaint on the Court’s current form for an action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, no later than September 11, 2006. (Doc. 4).

Plaintiff was also advised that his failure to comply with Orders

of the Court would result in the dismissal of his action. The

Court also directed the Clerk to forward to Plaintiff the current

form for an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Rather than refile as directed, Plaintiff, on August 21, 2006,

filed an objection and brief in response to the Court’s Order dated

August 11, 2006. (Doc. 5). On September 18, 2006, Plaintiff filed

Case 1:06-cv-00433-KD-B Document 10 Filed 11/28/06 Page 1 of 4
1

In light of the instant Order, Plaintiff’s Motion for

Status (Doc. 9) is moot; therefore, it is DENIED.

2

an appeal of the Court’s August 21, 2006, Order. (Doc. 6).1 Upon

review of Plaintiff’s appeal, District Judge Dubose overruled

Plaintiff’s objection, and ordered him to refile his complaint on

this Court’s current form no later than October 10, 2006.

Plaintiff was again advised that his failure to comply with Orders

of the Court would result in the dismissal of his action. As of

this date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s Orders,

and his copy of the Court’s Orders have not been returned to the

Court. 

Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Orders

and to prosecute this action, and upon consideration of the

alternatives that are 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 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. 1985); Jones

v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983). Accord Chambers

Case 1:06-cv-00433-KD-B Document 10 Filed 11/28/06 Page 2 of 4
3

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.) (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 this Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 27th day of November 2006.

 

 

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00433-KD-B Document 10 Filed 11/28/06 Page 3 of 4
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.

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00433-KD-B Document 10 Filed 11/28/06 Page 4 of 4