Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00609/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00609-0/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

HENRY C. BAILEY, #133390, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v . ) CASE NO. 2:13-CV-609-WKW 

 ) [WO]

)

LARRY PEAVY, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a complaint filed

by Henry C. Bailey [“Bailey”], an indigent state inmate. In the complaint, Bailey

alleges officers subjected him to excessive force while escorting him to the

segregation unit at the Draper Correctional Facility. Complaint Doc. No. 1 at 5.

 Pursuant to the orders of this court, the defendants filed a written report

supported by relevant evidentiary materials in which they addressed the claims for

relief presented by Bailey. Specifically, the medical records compiled on the date of

the alleged incident indicatesthat Bailey suffered no injuriesfrom the alleged assault

by correctional officers. 

 In light of the foregoing, the court issued an order directing Bailey to file a

response to the defendants’ written report. Order of December 20, 2013 - Doc. No.

Case 2:13-cv-00609-WKW-CSC Document 16 Filed 01/27/14 Page 1 of 4
15. The order advised Bailey that his failure to respond to the report 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. at 1 (emphasisin original). Additionally, the

order “specifically cautioned [the plaintiff] that [his failure] to file a response in

compliance with the directives of this order” would result in the dismissal of this

civil action. Id. The time allotted Bailey for filing a response in compliance with the

directives of this order expired on January 17, 2014. As of the present date, Bailey

has failed to file a requisite response in opposition to the defendants’ written report. 

The court therefore concludes that this case should be dismissed.

 The court has reviewed the file to determine whether a less drastic measure

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

is the proper course of action at this time. Bailey is an indigent individual. Thus, the

imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual. 

Additionally, Bailey’s inaction in the face of the defendants’ report and evidence

suggests a loss of interest in the continued prosecution of this case. Finally, the

undisputed evidentiary materials submitted by the defendants, including but not

limited to the medical record documenting relevant treatment provided to Bailey,

indicate that no violation of the Constitution occurred. It therefore appears that any

2

Case 2:13-cv-00609-WKW-CSC Document 16 Filed 01/27/14 Page 2 of 4
additional effort by this court to secure his compliance would be unavailing. 

Consequently, the court concludes that the plaintiff’s abandonment of his claims and

his failure to comply with an order of this court warrant dismissal. Moon v.

Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11 Cir. 1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has

th

been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of

discretion.); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232 Fed. Appx. 924 (11 Cir. 2007) (affirming th

sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate’s § 1983 action for failure to file an

amendment to complaint in compliance with court’s prior order directing amendment

and warning of consequences for failure to comply). 

For the above stated reasons, it isthe RECOMMENDATION ofthe Magistrate

Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice. It is further 

ORDERED that on or before February 10, 2014 the parties may file objections

to the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings

in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party is objecting. 

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 advisements in

3

Case 2:13-cv-00609-WKW-CSC Document 16 Filed 01/27/14 Page 3 of 4
the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo

determination by the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and

shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation

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 v. th

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

th

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

September 30, 1981.

Done this 27 day of January, 2014.

th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:13-cv-00609-WKW-CSC Document 16 Filed 01/27/14 Page 4 of 4