Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00448/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00448-1/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

 ____________________________

KENNETH PALMER, #148 136 *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:10-CV-448-TMH

(WO) 

OFFICER KENNETH COTTRELL, *

et al.,

Defendant. *

 ____________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a former prison inmate,1

 filed this complaint on May 21, 2010. On June 15,

2010 the court directed Defendants to file an answer and written report addressing Plaintiff's

claims for relief. In compliance with the court’s order, Defendants submitted an answer and

written report on July 27, 2010 which contained relevant evidentiary materials addressing

the allegations presented in the instant complaint. 

The court then issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’

answer and written report. (Doc. No. 12.) Plaintiff was advised that his failure to respond

to Defendants’ answer and written 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.)

(emphasis in original). Additionally, Plaintiff was "specifically cautioned that [his failure]

to file a response in compliance with the directives of this order" would result in the

1

During the pendency of this action Plaintiff was released from prison.

Case 2:10-cv-00448-TMH-SRW Document 13 Filed 09/29/10 Page 1 of 3
dismissal of this case. (Id.) 

The time allotted Plaintiff for the filing of a response expired on September 7, 2010. 

As of the present date, Plaintiff has filed nothing in opposition to Defendants’ answer and

written report as required by order filed August 16, 2010. In light of the foregoing, the court

concludes that this case should be dismissed.

 The court has reviewed the file in this case to determine whether less drastic sanctions

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

proper sanction. Plaintiff is an indigent state inmate. Thus, the imposition of monetary or

other punitive sanctions against him would be ineffective. Additionally, Plaintiff has

exhibited a lack of respect for this court and its authority as he has failed to comply with the

directives of the orders entered in this case. It is, therefore, apparent that any additional

effort by this court to secure Plaintiff’s compliance would be unavailing. Consequently, the

court concludes that Plaintiff’s abandonment of his claims, his failure to comply with the

orders of this court, and his failure to properly prosecute this cause of action warrant

dismissal of this case. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962) (interpreting Rule

41(b) not to restrict the court’s inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte an action for lack of

prosecution); World Thrust Films, Inc., v. International Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d

1454, 1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995). 

For the foregoing reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge

that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice.

 It is further

2

Case 2:10-cv-00448-TMH-SRW Document 13 Filed 09/29/10 Page 2 of 3
ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the 

Recommendation on or before October 14, 2010. Any objections 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 written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the 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 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the

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

September 30, 1981.

Done, this 29th day of September, 2010.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:10-cv-00448-TMH-SRW Document 13 Filed 09/29/10 Page 3 of 3