Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00571/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00571-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

 

LARRIE JENKINS, #251 907, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-571-MHT 

 ) [WO] 

ALABAMA PARDON AND PAROLE ) 

BOARD, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Montgomery Pre-Release Facility in Mt. Meigs, 

Alabama, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on July 14, 2016. Upon initiation of this action, 

Plaintiff filed an application seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis before this court. Doc. 2. 

In support of this request, Plaintiff provided financial information necessary to determine the 

average monthly balance in her prison account for the six-month period immediately preceding 

the filing of this complaint and the average monthly deposits to her inmate account during the past 

six months. Id.

 After a thorough review of the financial information provided by Plaintiff and pursuant to 

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A), the court determined that Plaintiff owed an initial 

partial filing fee of $31.27. Doc. 3. The court directed Plaintiff to pay the initial partial filing fee 

on or before August 15, 2016. Id. at 2. In addition, this order specifically informed Plaintiff “that 

it is her responsibility to submit the appropriate paperwork to the prison account clerk for 

transmission of her funds to this court for payment of the initial partial filing fee.” Id. The order 

also “advised [Plaintiff] that if she is unable to procure the initial partial filing fee within the time 

Case 2:16-cv-00571-MHT-WC Document 4 Filed 08/31/16 Page 1 of 3
allowed by this court she must inform the court of such inability and request an extension of time 

within which to file the fee.” Id. at 3. Moreover, the court specifically cautioned Plaintiff that 

failure to pay the requisite fee within the time allowed by the court would result in a 

Recommendation “that her case be dismissed and such dismissal will not be reconsidered unless 

exceptional circumstances exist.” Id. 

 Plaintiff failed to pay the initial partial filing fee within the time allowed by the court. The 

court, therefore, concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 

837 (11th Cir. 1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure 

to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232 F. App’x 924 

(11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate’s § 1983 action for 

failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with court’s prior order directing amendment 

and warning of consequences for failure to comply). 

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

DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the initial partial filing fee under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A) as ordered by this court. 

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before September 14, 2016, Plaintiff may file objections to this 

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

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

conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. 

 Failure to file written objections 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 

Case 2:16-cv-00571-MHT-WC Document 4 Filed 08/31/16 Page 2 of 3
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 31st day of August 2016. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

 

Case 2:16-cv-00571-MHT-WC Document 4 Filed 08/31/16 Page 3 of 3