Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00842/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00842-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHN HENRY GOODSON, :

 : 

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-0842-CB-M 

 : 

CONECUH COUNTY JAIL, et al., : 

 :

Defendants. : 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed

a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with an Affidavit in Support

of Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in the United States

District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on September

18, 2006. This action was transferred to this Court and filed on

December 8, 2006 (Doc. 23). This action was referred to the

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

72.2, and is before the Court for Plaintiff's failure to

prosecute and to comply with the Court’s Order. 

On December 28, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Transfer

Case to State Court-Conecuh County Circuit Court (Doc. 24). On

January 11, 2007, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer

and ordered Plaintiff to file his Complaint on this Court’s

complaint form for a section 1983 action by February 9, 2007

(Doc. 25). Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply with

the Order within the prescribed time would result in the

Case 1:06-cv-00842-CB-M Document 27 Filed 04/19/07 Page 1 of 4
2

dismissal of his action (Doc. 25). The Plaintiff contacted the

Court by telephone on February 8, 2007, and requested a fifteenday extension of time to file his complaint on this Court’s form. 

On February 8, 2007, Plaintiff’s request was granted and the date

for Plaintiff to file his Complaint was extended to February 26,

2007 (Doc. 26). The Order was mailed to Plaintiff at Red Eagle

Honor Farm, 1290 Red Eagle Road, Montgomery, Alabama 36610, his

last known address. The Court’s Order dated February 8, 2007

(Doc. 26), has not been returned to the Court, nor has the Court,

to date, heard from Plaintiff since this Order was entered. The

Court finds that Plaintiff has abandoned prosecution of this

action.

Due to Plaintiff'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

that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule

41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to

prosecute and to obey the Court's order, as no other lesser

sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R. R., 370 U.S. 626, 630,

82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388-89, 8 L.Ed.2d 734, 738 (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

Case 1:06-cv-00842-CB-M Document 27 Filed 04/19/07 Page 2 of 4
3

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 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).

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

Case 1:06-cv-00842-CB-M Document 27 Filed 04/19/07 Page 3 of 4
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 19th day of April, 2007.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00842-CB-M Document 27 Filed 04/19/07 Page 4 of 4