Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_08-cv-00761/USCOURTS-almd-2_08-cv-00761-1/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY EARL COPE, #244967, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-CV-761-WHA

) [WO]

)

RUSSELL THOAMIOS, )

)

 Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause of action is pending before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint

filed by Anthony Earl Cope [“Cope”], a state inmate, on September 17, 2008. In this

complaint, Cope challenges the conditions of confinement to which he was subjected

during his confinement in the Pike County Jail. 

Pursuant to the orders of this court, the defendant filed a written report supported by

relevant evidentiary materials in which he addressed the claims for relief presented by

Cope. The report and evidentiary materials refute the allegations presented in the instant

cause of action. The court thereafter issued an order directing Cope to file a response to

the written report. Order of December 2, 2008 - Court Doc. No. 12. The order advised

Cope that his failure to respond to the defendant’s written report would be treated by the

court “as an abandonment of the claims set forth in the complaint and as a failure to

prosecute this action.” Id. at 1 (emphasis in original). Additionally, the order

“specifically cautioned [the plaintiff] that [his failure] to file a response in compliance

Case 2:08-cv-00761-WHA-SRW Document 14 Filed 01/27/09 Page 1 of 3
with the directives of this order” would result in the dismissal of this civil action. Id. 

The time allotted Cope for filing a response in compliance with the directives of this order

expired on December 22, 2008. As of the present date, Cope has failed to file a requisite

response in opposition to the defendant’s written report. In light of the foregoing, the court

concludes that this case should be dismissed.

 The court has reviewed the file in this case to determine whether a less drastic

measure than dismissal is appropriate. After such review, it is clear that dismissal of this

case without prejudice is the proper course of action. Cope is an indigent inmate. Thus,

the imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual. 

Additionally, Cope has exhibited a lack of deference for this court and its authority as he

has failed to comply with the directives of the orders entered in this case. It is therefore

apparent that any additional effort by this court to secure Cope’s compliance would be

unavailing. Consequently, the court concludes that the plaintiff’s abandonment of his

claims, his failure to comply with the orders of this court and his failure to properly

continue prosecution of this cause of action warrant dismissal of this case. 

 CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge

that this case be dismissed without prejudice. It is further 

ORDERED that on or before February 10, 2009 the parties may file objections to

the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive

2

Case 2:08-cv-00761-WHA-SRW Document 14 Filed 01/27/09 Page 2 of 3
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 advisements in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by

the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d

33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981,

en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit

handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Done, this 27th day of January, 2009.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:08-cv-00761-WHA-SRW Document 14 Filed 01/27/09 Page 3 of 3