Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00123/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00123-0/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 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

DEQUINCY WILLIAMS, #288 109, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-123-MHT 

 ) [WO] 

STEWARD MR. KENT, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 On April 29, 2015, the court directed Plaintiff to show cause on or before May 11, 

2015, why 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 $2.16 as directed by order entered 

March 17, 2015. Doc. No. 6. 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 

April 29 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 April 29, 2015, order to show 

cause. Consequently, the court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate for 

Plaintiff’s failures to prosecute this action and comply with the orders of the court. 

Case 2:15-cv-00123-MHT-WC Document 7 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 2
2 

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

case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failures to prosecute this action and 

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 July 2, 2015. Any objections filed must specifically 

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party is 

objecting. 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 18th day of June, 2015. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-00123-MHT-WC Document 7 Filed 06/18/15 Page 2 of 2