Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00604/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00604-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

REONTAY HARLEY, #264878, ) 

 )

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CASE NO. 2:16-CV-604-WKW 

)

PEDE HELP MARTIN, et al., )

 )

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Reontay Harley (“Harley”), a state inmate, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on July 22, 

2016. The instant complaint is virtually identical to a complaint filed by Harley on July 18, 2016, 

Harley v. Martin, et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-589-WKW-TFM (M.D. Ala.). In both complaints 

Harley alleges that the defendants recently used excessive force against him at the Bullock 

Correctional Facility. 

Upon initiation of this case, Harley did not submit the necessary filing and administrative 

fees nor did he file an application seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis before this court. 

The court therefore entered an order requiring that on or before August 8, 2016 Harley “file either 

the appropriate affidavit in support of a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis . . . or, if he 

does not seek in forma pauperis treatment, the $400 filing/administrative fees.” Doc. No. 2 at 1-

2. In accordance with this order, the Clerk provided Harley with a copy of the in forma pauperis

application used by this court. Id. at 2. The court also “cautioned [Harley] that if he fails to comply 

with this order the Magistrate Judge will recommend that this case be dismissed.” Id. 

Case 2:16-cv-00604-WKW-TFM Document 3 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Harley has filed nothing in response to this order within the time allowed by the court. The 

court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. 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 amended complaint in compliance with court’s prior order and warning of 

consequences for failure to comply). 

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

dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to either pay the requisite fees attendant to 

filing the instant cause of action or submit an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

as ordered by this court. It is further

ORDERED that on or before September 1, 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, 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 party from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered 

in the Recommendation and waives the right of the party 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 

Case 2:16-cv-00604-WKW-TFM Document 3 Filed 08/17/16 Page 2 of 3
3

404 (5th Cir. 1982); 11th Cir. R. 3-1. See Stein v. Lanning Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 

1982). 

DONE this 17th day of August, 2016.

 /s/Terry F. Moorer

 TERRY F. MOORER 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00604-WKW-TFM Document 3 Filed 08/17/16 Page 3 of 3