Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_14-cv-00239/USCOURTS-almd-3_14-cv-00239-2/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

EASTERN DIVISION

EARNEST J. FILES, JR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-239-WKW

) [WO]

STEVE HAY, )

)

Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On May 7, 2014, the court entered an order which notified Plaintiff service of the

complaint on Defendant Steve Hay had not been effected because is no longer at the service

address provided by Plaintiff. Doc. No. 16. The order advised Plaintiff that if a person had

not been served, he/she was not a party to this lawsuit except in very unusual circumstances.

Plaintiff was, therefore, directed to furnish the Clerk’s Office with a correct address for

Defendant Hay. The above-referenced order further advised Plaintiff that the court would not

continue to monitor this case to ensure that the defendant(s) Plaintiff wished to sue had been

served.Plaintiffwasinformed thatthiswas hisresponsibility. The order also informedPlaintiff

that if he failed to comply with the court’s directives, the individual mentioned above would

not be served, and he would not be considered a party to this action.

Plaintiff hasfiled no response to the court's May 7 order. Because Defendant Hay isthe

only remaining defendant to this cause of action, the court concludes that dismissal of this

action is appropriate.

In light of the foregoing, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that

Case 3:14-cv-00239-WKW-CSC Document 24 Filed 07/18/14 Page 1 of 2
the instant complaint be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the

order of this court that he provide an addressfor Defendant Hay, the only defendant remaining

in this case, and the resulting failure to effect service of the complaint on this individual.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before August 1, 2014, Plaintiff may file an objection to the

Recommendation. Any objection filed mustspecifically identify the findingsin the Magistrate

Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general

objections will not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is advised this

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

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendationsin the

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

of issues covered in the report and shall bar a 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 v. Reynolds

th

Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d

th

1206 (11 Cir. 1981)(en banc), adopting as binding precedent all ofthe decisions ofthe former

th

Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Done this 18 day of July, 2014.

th

/s/Charles S. Coody

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 3:14-cv-00239-WKW-CSC Document 24 Filed 07/18/14 Page 2 of 2