Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_03-cv-00721/USCOURTS-alsd-1_03-cv-00721-0/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

DARRELL WILLIAMS, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 03-00721-BH-B

TONYA COOK, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed

the instant case alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Docs. 1, 7). This case was referred to the undersigned

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

Rule 72.2(c)(4) for appropriate action. Because Plaintiff has

failed to prosecute and to comply with the Court’s Order dated

May 11, 2005, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED

without prejudice. 

On May 11, 2005, this Court issued an Order directing

Plaintiff to file a new complaint by June 10, 2005 (Doc. 9). The

Court noted, with respect to Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc.

7), that Plaintiff failed to properly complete the form, and that

the amended complaint contained many allegations that were vague

and conclusory, and failed to provide proper notice to the

defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff was directed to refile his

Case 1:03-cv-00721-BH-B Document 10 Filed 10/11/05 Page 1 of 5
2

amended complaint, and was advised that his failure to refile the

amended complaint within the prescribed time and in the format

ordered by the Court would result in the dismissal of this action

for failure to prosecute and to obey the Court’s Order. The Court

also directed the Clerk to forward to Plaintiff a copy of the

requisite form along with a copy of the Order. To date, Plaintiff

has not responded in any manner to the Court's Order (Doc. 9), nor

has his copy of the Order and form been returned to the Court. 

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 as no other lesser

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

82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (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 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

Case 1:03-cv-00721-BH-B Document 10 Filed 10/11/05 Page 2 of 5
3

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).

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to this Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 11th day of October, 2005.

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-00721-BH-B Document 10 Filed 10/11/05 Page 3 of 5
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). 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, in part, 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 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. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing party

may submit a brief opposing the objection within ten (10) days of being

served with a copy of the statement of objection. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72; SD

ALA LR 72.4(b).

3. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). Pursuant

Case 1:03-cv-00721-BH-B Document 10 Filed 10/11/05 Page 4 of 5
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.

/S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-00721-BH-B Document 10 Filed 10/11/05 Page 5 of 5