Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00317/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00317-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

VINCENT LOWE, #299915, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CASE NO. 2:16-CV-317-WHA 

)

CHARLES WEST, et al., ) 

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Vincent Lowe (“Lowe”), an inmate incarcerated at the Easterling Correctional 

Facility, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on May 5, 2016. In this case, Lowe challenges 

conditions of confinement to which he was subjected during a prior term of incarceration 

at the Crenshaw County Jail. He also presents claims which go to the fundamental legality 

of his incarceration. 

Upon initiation of this case, Lowe did not submit the necessary filing and 

administrative fees nor did he file an application seeking leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis before this court. The court therefore entered an order requiring that, on or before 

June 13, 2016, Lowe “file either the appropriate affidavit in support of a motion for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis . . . or, if he does not seek in forma pauperis treatment, the 

$350 filing fee and $50 administrative fee.” Doc. 2 at 1. In accordance with this order, the 

Clerk of the Court provided Lowe with a copy of the in forma pauperis application used 

Case 2:16-cv-00317-WHA-GMB Document 3 Filed 06/27/16 Page 1 of 3
2

by this court. The court also “cautioned [Lowe] that if he fails to comply with this order 

the Magistrate Judge will recommend that this case be dismissed.” Doc. 2 at 2. 

Lowe has filed nothing in response to this order 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) (holding that, as a general rule, dismissal for failure to obey 

a court order is not an abuse of discretion where a litigant has been forewarned); see Tanner 

v. Neal, 232 Fed. 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 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 failure of the plaintiff to either pay the requisite fees 

attendant to filing the complaint or submit an application for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis as ordered by this court. 

It is further ORDERED that on or before July 11, 2016 the plaintiff may file 

objections to the Recommendation. The plaintiff must specifically identify the factual 

findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made; 

frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written 

objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance with the 

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the 

District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the 

right of the party to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to 

Case 2:16-cv-00317-WHA-GMB Document 3 Filed 06/27/16 Page 2 of 3
3

factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon 

grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 

1982); 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Stein v. Lanning Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). 

DONE this 27th day of June, 2016.

 /s/ Gray M. Borden 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00317-WHA-GMB Document 3 Filed 06/27/16 Page 3 of 3