Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00867/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00867-0/pdf.json

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

---

1 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL DEVANE WHITFIELD, ) 

AIS # 268498, ) 

) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

) 

 v. ) CASE NO. 2:15-CV-867-MHT 

) 

CARTER DAVENPORT, ) 

) 

 Defendant. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a complaint filed by 

Michael Devane Whitfield (“Whitfield”), an indigent inmate, in which he challenges the 

constitutionality of conditions of confinement at the Easterling Correctional Facility. 

Specifically, Whitfield alleges that the window in his cell was in a state of disrepair, he 

was served cold or partially cooked food, and the water supply from an outside source 

was contaminated. 

 Pursuant to the orders of this court, the defendant filed written reports supported 

by relevant evidentiary materials, including affidavits, in which he addresses the claims 

for relief presented by Whitfield. The reports and evidentiary materials refute the selfserving, conclusory allegations presented by Whitfield. The defendant asserts and the 

documented evidence indicates that the conditions about which Whitfield complains did 

not deprive him of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities” so as to establish 

Case 2:15-cv-00867-MHT-WC Document 14 Filed 03/28/16 Page 1 of 4
2 

a violation of his constitutional rights. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). 

Moreover, the defendant argues that none of Whitfield’s claims present a severe or 

extreme condition that posed an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his health or 

safety, and Whitfield has not alleged that he suffered requisite harm as a result of the 

challenged conditions. See Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1289 (11th Cir. 2004) 

(holding that a prisoner must prove that the prison condition he complains of is 

sufficiently serious and “extreme” to violate the Eighth Amendment). 

 In light of the foregoing, the court issued an order directing Whitfield to file a 

response to the defendant’s written reports. Order of February 9, 2016 - Doc. No. 13. 

The order advised Whitfield that his failure to respond to the reports 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 1 (emphasis in original). Additionally, the order 

“specifically cautioned [the 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 Whitfield for filing a response in compliance with the 

directives of this order expired on February 29, 2016. Id. As of the present date, 

Whitfield has failed to file a requisite response in opposition to the defendant’s written 

reports. The court therefore concludes that this case should be dismissed. 

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

dismissal is appropriate. After such review, it is clear that dismissal of this case is the 

Case 2:15-cv-00867-MHT-WC Document 14 Filed 03/28/16 Page 2 of 4
3 

proper course of action at this time. Whitfield is an indigent individual. Thus, the 

imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual. 

Additionally, Whitfield’s inaction in the face of the defendant’s reports and evidence 

suggests a loss of interest in the continued prosecution of this case. Finally, the 

undisputed evidentiary materials submitted by the defendant indicate that no violation of 

the Constitution occurred. It therefore appears that any additional effort by this court to 

secure Whitfield’s compliance would be unavailing. Consequently, the court concludes 

that Whitfield’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 his 

failure to comply 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 

 ORDERED that on or before April 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, 

Case 2:15-cv-00867-MHT-WC Document 14 Filed 03/28/16 Page 3 of 4
4 

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 de novo determination by the District 

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

the plaintiff to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to 

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

 DONE this 28th day of March, 2016. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-00867-MHT-WC Document 14 Filed 03/28/16 Page 4 of 4