Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00197/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00197-0/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 

MARK ALLEN LOVELACE, #146 647, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-197-WHA 

 ) [WO] 

WARDEN KARLA JONES, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

On May 23, 2016, the court granted Plaintiff an extension of time to file an amended 

complaint by June 6, 2016, in accordance with the directives of the court’s April 18, 2016, order. 

See Docs. 5, 9. The May 23 order cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to file an amended complaint 

in compliance with the directives of the court’s May 23 order would result in a Recommendation 

that his complaint be dismissed. Id. The requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has not complied 

with the orders of the court. 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. 

 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 on or before November 9, 2016, Plaintiff may file an objection to the 

Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the factual findings and legal 

conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, 

Case 2:16-cv-00197-WHA-WC Document 10 Filed 10/26/16 Page 1 of 2
conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. This 

Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable. 

 Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in the 

Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of 

factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive the right to challenge on 

appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except upon 

grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust 

Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 

790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989). 

 Done, this 26th day of October 2016. 

 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:16-cv-00197-WHA-WC Document 10 Filed 10/26/16 Page 2 of 2