Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_14-cv-00078/USCOURTS-alsd-1_14-cv-00078-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL DEWAYNE THOMAS, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

vs. * CIVIL ACTION NO.: 14-00078-KD-B

*

RONZELLA HOWARD, et al., *

*

Defendants. *

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action, which was filed by Michael Dewayne Thomas, an 

Alabama state inmate, has been referred to the undersigned pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a)(2)(R) for 

appropriate action. Upon review, it is recommended that this action 

be dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 

and comply with the Court’s Orders order. 

Plaintiff Thomas filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights under 

the Eighth Amendment by their deliberate indifference to a serious 

risk of harm and their denial of medical and mental health treatment. 

(Doc. 1). Upon review of the Court’s file in this action, the 

undersigned observes that Plaintiff’s last contact with the Court

was on April 22, 2014, when Plaintiff filed his “Declaration.” (Doc. 

16). Due to the length of time that has elapsed since Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:14-cv-00078-KD-B Document 22 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 4
2

last contact, the Court examined the Alabama Department of 

Corrections’ website and discovered that Plaintiff is now 

incarcerated at St. Clair Correctional Facility, 1000 St. Clair Road, 

Springville, Alabama, 35146. Plaintiff neglected to advise the Court 

of this change in his address even though he was warned on the complaint 

form that he must advise the Court of a change in his address or suffer 

the dismissal of his action for failure to prosecute and to obey the 

Court’s Order. (Doc. 2 at 12). 

Given Plaintiff’s failure to advise the Court of a change in

his address, and considering the length of time since Plaintiff’s 

last contact with the Court, it appears that Plaintiff has lost 

interest in this action. Accordingly, on May 10, 2016, Plaintiff was 

ordered to inform the Court, in writing, if he wished to proceed with 

the litigation of this action. (Doc. 21). Plaintiff was expressly 

warned that failure to Comply with this Order within the prescribed 

time would be treated as abandonment of the prosecution of this action. 

(Id. at 2). To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order, 

nor has his copy of the Order been returned to the Court. 

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

and to prosecute this action, his apparent loss of interest in this 

case, 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 

Case 1:14-cv-00078-KD-B Document 22 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 4
3

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) to not 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). 

Notice of Right to File Objections

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all 

parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this 

recommendation or anything in it must, within fourteen (14) days of 

the date of service of this document, file specific written objections 

with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 

72(b); S.D. ALA GenLR 72(c). The parties should note that under 

Case 1:14-cv-00078-KD-B Document 22 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 4
4

Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate 

judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report and 

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s 

order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the 

party was informed of the time period for objecting and the 

consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a 

proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain 

error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1.

In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific 

finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis 

for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s 

report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. 

An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the 

briefing done by the Magistrate Judge is not specific. 

DONE this 17th day of June, 2016

 /S/SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00078-KD-B Document 22 Filed 06/20/16 Page 4 of 4