Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00342/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00342-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing his complaint in

the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Alabama. Subsequently, this action was transferred to this

Court.

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES EDWARD CARTER, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-0342-CG-M 

 :

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF :

CORRECTIONS, et al., :

 :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed

a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 together with a Motion to

Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (See Doc. 6, attachments 2,

3).1

 This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Local Rule 72.2 (c)(4), and is now before

the Court for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and to comply with

the Court’s Order. 

On June 26, 2006, the Court ordered Plaintiff to inform the

Court by July 14, 2006, if he wanted to proceed with the

prosecution of this action. Plaintiff was warned that his

failure to respond would be considered by the Court as an

abandonment of the prosecution of this action by him and would be

Case 1:05-cv-00342-CG-M Document 23 Filed 07/18/06 Page 1 of 4
2

dismissed (Doc. 22). The Order was mailed to Plaintiff at Loxley

Work Release Center, P. O. Box 1030, Loxley, Alabama 36551. The

Court last heard from Plaintiff on August 16, 2005 when he filed

a letter motion for status (Doc. 15). Plaintiff has not

responded nor has the Order been returned to the Court by postal

authorities. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has abandoned

prosecution of this action.

Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order,

and upon consideration of the alternative 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. 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

Case 1:05-cv-00342-CG-M Document 23 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 4
3

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

(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

Case 1:05-cv-00342-CG-M Document 23 Filed 07/18/06 Page 3 of 4
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 18th day of July, 2006.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00342-CG-M Document 23 Filed 07/18/06 Page 4 of 4