Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00463/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00463-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa

---

1

In Respondents’ Motion, they argued that this action should

be dismissed because Petitioner was released from custody on

October 19, 2006. (Doc. 15).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ROMANUS M. ISIOFIA, :

Petitioner, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-00463-KD-B

DAVID O. STREIFF, et al., :

Respondents. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In an Order dated November 20, 2006, Petitioner was directed

to file, by December 7, 2006, a Response to Respondents’ Motion to

Dismiss1 (Doc. 15). The copy of the Order which was mailed to

Petitioner was returned (Doc. 17). Subsequent thereto, the Order

was resent to Petitioner at his last address on file. To date,

Petitioner has filed no response, nor has his copy of the Order been

returned to the Court. Accordingly, the undersigned concludes

Petitioner has abandoned the prosecution of his action. Upon

consideration of the alternatives available to the Court, it is

recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant

to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as no other

lesser sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626,

630 (1962); Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 484 (11th Cir. 2006);

World Thrust Films, Inc. v. International Family Entertainment,

Case 2:06-cv-00463-KD-B Document 18 Filed 01/29/07 Page 1 of 4
2

The Eleventh Circuit in Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661

F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopted as binding

precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered

prior to October 1, 1981.

2

Inc., 41 F.3d 1454, 1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995); Mingo v. Sugar Cane

Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Goforth v. Owens,

766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d

1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983); Hildebrand v. Honeywell, Inc., 622 F.2d

179, 181 (5th Cir. 1980).2 Accord Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S.

32, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (finding that federal

courts’ inherent power to manage their own proceedings authorized

the imposition of attorney’s fees and related expenses as a

sanction); Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545-46

(11th Cir.) (ruling that the court’s inherent power to manage

actions before it permitted the imposition of fines), cert. denied,

510 U.S. 863, 114 S.Ct. 181, 126 L.Ed.2d 140 (1993).

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to the Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 29th day of January 2007.

 

 

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00463-KD-B Document 18 Filed 01/29/07 Page 2 of 4
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of this

document, file specific written objections with the clerk of court.

Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the district

judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an attack, on

appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate judge. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir.

1988). The procedure for challenging the findings and

recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out in more detail

in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides, in part, that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a

“Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days after being served with

a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time is

established by order. The statement of objection shall

specify those portions of the recommendation to which

objection is made and the basis for the objection. The

objecting party shall submit to the district judge, at

the time of filing the objection, a brief setting forth

the party’s arguments that the magistrate judge’s

recommendation should be reviewed de novo and a different

disposition made. It is insufficient to submit only a

copy of the original brief submitted to the magistrate

judge, although a copy of the original brief may be

submitted or referred to and incorporated into the brief

in support of the objection. Failure to submit a brief

in support of the objection may be deemed an abandonment

of the objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a

Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can

be appealed.

2. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing

party may submit a brief opposing the objection within ten (10)

days of being served with a copy of the statement of objection.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

3. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the magistrate

judge finds that the tapes and original records in this action are

Case 2:06-cv-00463-KD-B Document 18 Filed 01/29/07 Page 3 of 4
adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to

this recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is

advised that a judicial determination that transcription is

necessary is required before the United States will pay the cost of

the transcript.

DONE this 29th day of January 2007.

 

 

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00463-KD-B Document 18 Filed 01/29/07 Page 4 of 4