Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00901/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00901-2/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 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

TYRUS JONES, #287 250, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-901-MHT 

 ) [WO] 

OFFICER YOUNG, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on August 27, 2014. On October 2, 

2014, the court directed Defendants to file an answer and written report addressing 

Plaintiff’s claims for relief. In compliance with the court’s order, Defendants submitted 

an answer and written report on February 13, 2015, which contained relevant evidentiary 

materials refuting the allegations in the complaint. Upon review of this report, the court 

issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ answer and written 

report. Doc. No. 24. The order advised Plaintiff that his failure to respond to the report 

would be treated by the court “as an abandonment of the claims set forth in the complaint 

and as a failure to prosecute this action.” Id. at 2. The order “specifically cautioned 

[Plaintiff] that [his failure] to file a response in compliance with the directives of this 

order” would result in the dismissal of this civil action. Id. 

The time allotted Plaintiff for filing a response in compliance with the directives 

of the court’s February 17, 2015, order expired on March 10, 2015. As of the present 

Case 2:14-cv-00901-MHT-WC Document 25 Filed 04/08/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

date, Plaintiff has filed nothing in opposition to Defendants’ written report. The court 

therefore concludes this case should be dismissed. 

The court has reviewed the file to determine whether a drastic measure less than 

dismissal is appropriate. After such review, dismissal is the proper course of action. 

Plaintiff is an indigent individual. The imposition of monetary or other punitive 

sanctions against him would be ineffectual. Plaintiff’s inaction in the face of Defendant’s 

report and evidentiary materials refuting the claims raised suggest he does not seek to 

proceed with this case. It, therefore, appears that any additional effort by this court to 

secure his compliance would be unavailing. Consequently, the court concludes that 

Plaintiff’s abandonment of his claims and his failure to comply with an order of this court 

warrant dismissal. 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 amendment to complaint in compliance with court’s prior order directing 

amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply). 

For the above stated reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate 

Judge that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. It is further 

 It is further ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to 

the said Recommendation on or before April 22, 2015. 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 

Case 2:14-cv-00901-MHT-WC Document 25 Filed 04/08/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

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 

(5th Cir. 1982); see Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see 

also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (adopting as 

binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to 

the close of business on September 30, 1981). 

Done this 8th day of April, 2015. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:14-cv-00901-MHT-WC Document 25 Filed 04/08/15 Page 3 of 3