Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00778/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00778-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

If the court has misconstrued Plaintiff’s wishes regarding the status of this matter, he should file

his objection to the instant Recommendation within the time period allowed. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 _____________________________

NORMAN JOSEPH CONKLE, II *

#213 950

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 2:07-CV-778-MEF

 (WO)

CO OTIS BARNES, et al., *

Defendants. *

 ____________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff filed this complaint on August 29, 2007. On October 11, 2007 he filed a

pleading with the court in which he indicates that the current litigation is confusing to him

Plaintiff states that he is “going to have to give up” because he does not know what he is

doing. 

The court has construed Plaintiff’s October 11 pleading as a motion to dismiss the

complaint. Upon review of the file in this case, the court concludes that Plaintiff's motion to

dismiss is due to be granted.1

 Plaintiff is advised that dismissal of his complaint is without

prejudice to his right to re-file this action should he subsequently determine that he is in a

position to litigate this matter. 

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff's

motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 8) be GRANTED and that this case be DISMISSED without

Case 2:07-cv-00778-MEF-CSC Document 9 Filed 10/22/07 Page 1 of 2
2

prejudice.

It is further

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

Recommendation on or before November 5, 2007. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects.

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 (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 22nd day of October, 2007.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00778-MEF-CSC Document 9 Filed 10/22/07 Page 2 of 2