Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00847/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00847-1/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 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

REGINALD MOORE, #254 232 )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-847-TMH

) [WO]

GARY HETZEL, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on October 7, 2011. On December 21,

2011 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 their answers

and written reports which contained relevant evidentiary materials refuting the allegations

presented in the instant complaint. The court then issued an order directing Plaintiff to file

a response to Defendants’ answers and written reports. (Doc. No. 22.) Plaintiff was advised

that his failure to respond to Defendants’ answers and written 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.) (emphasis in original). Additionally, Plaintiff was "specifically

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

order" would result in the dismissal of this case. (Id.) 

The time allotted Plaintiff for the filing of a response expired on February 28, 2012. 

As of the present date, Plaintiff has filed nothing in opposition to Defendants’ answers and

Case 2:11-cv-00847-TMH-TFM Document 24 Filed 04/18/12 Page 1 of 3
written reports as required by order filed February 7, 2012. In light of the foregoing, the

court concludes that this case should be dismissed.

 The court has reviewed the file in this case to determine whether less drastic 

sanctions than dismissal are appropriate. After such review, it is clear that dismissal of this

case is the proper sanction. Plaintiff is an indigent state inmate. Thus, the imposition of

monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual. Additionally,

Plaintiff has exhibited a lack of respect for this court and its authority as he has failed to

comply with the directives of the orders entered in this case. It is, therefore, apparent that

any additional effort by this court to secure Plaintiff’s compliance would be unavailing. 

Consequently, the court concludes that Plaintiff’s abandonment of his claims, his failure to

comply with the orders of this court, and his failure to properly prosecute this cause of action

warrant dismissal of this case. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (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 (11 Cir. 1995). th

For the foregoing reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge

that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice.

 It is further

ORDERED that the parties may file any objections to the Recommendation on or

before May 2, 2012. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

2

Case 2:11-cv-00847-TMH-TFM Document 24 Filed 04/18/12 Page 2 of 3
Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or

general objections will not be considered by 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 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein th

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

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done, this 18 day of April 2012. th

 /s/ Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

3

Case 2:11-cv-00847-TMH-TFM Document 24 Filed 04/18/12 Page 3 of 3