Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-01116/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-01116-1/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

 __________________________________

EARNEST LEE WALKER, #187 017 *

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 2:05-CV-1116-WKW

(WO)

COMMISSIONER OF ALABAMA *

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, 

et al., *

Defendants. *

 __________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

On January 6, 2006 the court directed Plaintiff to show cause which this case should

not be dismissed for his failure to forward to the Clerk of Court an initial partial filing fee in

the amount of $10.00. (Doc. No. 18.) The order informed Plaintiff to advise the court

whether he authorized prison officials to withdraw the funds from his prison account for

payment of the initial partial filing fee, whether he simply had chosen not to submit the filing

fee, or whether he was unable to comply at this time with the order directing payment of the

initial partial filing fee. (Id.) Plaintiff was also cautioned that his failure to comply with the

January 6 order would result in a Recommendation that his complaint be dismissed. (Id.)

The requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has not provided the court with the initial

partial filing fee nor has he responded to the court’s January 6, 2006 order to show cause.

Case 2:05-cv-01116-WKW-VPM Document 21 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 3
-2-

Consequently, the court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate for Plaintiff’s

failure to comply with the orders of the court.

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case

be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the orders of this

court. 

 It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before February 7, 2006. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous,

conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are

advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not

appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain

error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein th

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of th

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the th

Case 2:05-cv-01116-WKW-VPM Document 21 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 3
-3-

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done this 24 day of January 2006. 

th

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-01116-WKW-VPM Document 21 Filed 01/24/06 Page 3 of 3