Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00444/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00444-1/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

RICHARD C. BURTON, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-0444-CG-M 

 :

JAMES PAIN, et al., :

 :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed

a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a Motion to Proceed

Without Prepayment of Fees. This action was referred to the

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

72.2(c)(4), and is now before the Court for Plaintiff’s failure

to prosecute and to obey the Court’s Order. 

On June 20, 2008, Plaintiff was ordered to inform the Court

by July 11, 2008, if he wanted to proceed with the prosecution of

this action. Plaintiff was advised that if he did not respond,

the Court would assume that Plaintiff has chosen not to proceed

and that this action would be dismissed without prejudice (Doc.

34). The Order was mailed to Plaintiff at Keeton Corrections,

4901 Battleship Parkway, Spanish Fort, Alabama 36527, which is

the address furnished by Plaintiff. The Order was returned with

the notation “Return to Sender, No Mail Receptacle, Unable to

Forward” (Doc. 35). The Court last heard from Plaintiff on July

Case 1:06-cv-00444-CG-M Document 36 Filed 07/15/08 Page 1 of 4
2

27, 2007, when he filed a Notice of Change of Address (Doc. 29). 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has abandoned prosecution of this

action.

Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order, 

the time and expense expended by Defendants in defending this

action, and upon consideration of the alternatives that are

available to the Court, it is recommended that this action be

dismissed with 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

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.

Case 1:06-cv-00444-CG-M Document 36 Filed 07/15/08 Page 2 of 4
3

181, 126 L.Ed.2d 140 (1993). 

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); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404

(5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). 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 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. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the

magistrate judge finds that the tapes and original records in

Case 1:06-cv-00444-CG-M Document 36 Filed 07/15/08 Page 3 of 4
4

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.

DONE this 15th day of July, 2008.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:06-cv-00444-CG-M Document 36 Filed 07/15/08 Page 4 of 4