Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_11-cv-00849/USCOURTS-almd-3_11-cv-00849-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

TRAVIS MCCULLOUGH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-849-TMH

) [WO]

DET. MIKE RODGERS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was filed by Plaintiff on October 7, 2011. At the

time he filed this complaint, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Talladega County Jail located

in Talladega, Alabama.

On October 17, 2011, the court entered an order of procedure directing Defendants

to file an answer and written report to Plaintiff’s complaint. The October 17 order also

instructed Plaintiff to inform the court of any change in his address and cautioned him that

his failure to comply with this requirement would result in a Recommendation that this case

be dismissed. See Court Doc. No. 4, ¶6(h).

It recently came to the court’s attention that Plaintiff is no longer housed at the

Talladega County Jail. This is the last known address the court has on file for Plaintiff.

Consequently, the court entered an order on October 28, 2013, directing Plaintiff to provide

the court with his present address on or before November 12, 2013. Court Doc. No. 55.

Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the court's October 28 order would

Case 3:11-cv-00849-TMH-TFM Document 56 Filed 11/06/13 Page 1 of 3
result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. Plaintiff’s copy of the court’s

October 28 order was returned to the court on November 5, 2013, marked as undeliverable.

As it appears clear that Plaintiff is no longer residing at the most recent address he

provided to the court and that he has not provided this court with a new address for service,

the undersigned concludes that dismissal of the complaint at this juncture is appropriate.

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

be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’sfailuresto prosecute this action properly and

to comply with the orders of this court.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before November 21, 2013 the parties may file an objection

to the Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the

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 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 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

2

Case 3:11-cv-00849-TMH-TFM Document 56 Filed 11/06/13 Page 2 of 3
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 6 day of November 2013.

th

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 3:11-cv-00849-TMH-TFM Document 56 Filed 11/06/13 Page 3 of 3