Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00343/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00343-1/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

 _______________________________

ROGER CHARLES LANIER, #220079 *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:06-CV-343-MEF

 (WO)

GOVERNOR BOB RILEY, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _______________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on April 14, 2006. The court recently

ascertained that Plaintiff is no longer housed at the Kilby Correctional Facility which is the

last address the court has on file for Plaintiff. All parties have an affirmative duty to

inform this court of any address changes during the pendency of their actions.

On May 19, 2006 the court entered an order directing Plaintiff to provide the court

with his present address on or before May 30, 2006. ( Doc. No. 11.) Plaintiff was cautioned

that his failure to comply with the court's May 19 order would result in a recommendation

that this case be dismissed. (Id.) On May 25, 2006 the envelope containing Plaintiff’s copy

of the court’s May 19, 2006 order was returned to the court marked “return to sender, inmate

was released.” As it appears clear that Plaintiff is no longer residing at the address he

provided to the court when he filed the instant complaint, and that he has not provided this

court with a new address, the undersigned concludes that dismissal of the complaint at this

Case 2:06-cv-00343-MEF-DRB Document 12 Filed 05/26/06 Page 1 of 3
2

juncture is appropriate.

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

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

to comply with the orders of this court. 

 It is further

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

Recommendation on or before June 7, 2006. 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 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein th

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of th

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Case 2:06-cv-00343-MEF-DRB Document 12 Filed 05/26/06 Page 2 of 3
3

Done, this 26 day of May 2006. th

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

DELORES R. BOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00343-MEF-DRB Document 12 Filed 05/26/06 Page 3 of 3