Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00947/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00947-0/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

MARTY LEE GEORGE, #146 034, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-947-WHA

) [WO]

EASTERLING CORRECTIONAL )

FACILITY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On January 9, 2014, the court granted Plaintiff fourteen days to file with the Clerk

either the $350.00 filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

accompanied by an affidavit in support thereof. Doc. No. 2. Plaintiff was cautioned that his

failure to comply with the January 9 order would result in a Recommendation that his

complaint be dismissed. (Id.) The requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has not provided

the court with either the filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Consequently, the court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate for Plaintiff’s

failures to comply with the orders of the court and to prosecute this action.

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case

be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to comply with the orders of this

court and to prosecute this action.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before March 19, 2014, Plaintiff may file an objection to the

Case 2:13-cv-00947-WHA-TFM Document 3 Filed 03/05/14 Page 1 of 2
Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in 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 that this

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

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in

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

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 5 day of March 2014.

th

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 2:13-cv-00947-WHA-TFM Document 3 Filed 03/05/14 Page 2 of 2