Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00047/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00047-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CORNELIUS PAYNE, : 

Petitioner, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 07-00047-CB-B

MIKE HALEY, et al. :

Respondents. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed

a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). This case was referred

to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4) for appropriate action.

Because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute and to comply with the

Court’s Order dated February 7, 2007, it is recommended that this

action be dismissed without prejudice. 

Petitioner did not file his petition (Doc. 1) on the Court’s

required forms. Accordingly, on February 7, 2007, this Court

issued an Order directing Petitioner to refile his petition on this

Court's current forms and to file a motion to proceed without

prepayment of fees, or in lieu thereof, pay the required $5.00

filing fee by March 5, 2007. (Doc. 2). Petitioner was advised that

if he elected not to refile on the Court’s current forms for a

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a motion to proceed without

prepayment of fees, or in lieu thereof, pay the required $5.00

Case 1:07-cv-00047-CB-B Document 3 Filed 09/11/07 Page 1 of 4
2

filing fee, his action would be dismissed without prejudice for

failure to prosecute and to obey the Court's Order. The Court also

directed the Clerk to forward to Petitioner a copy of the requisite

forms along with a copy of the Order. To date, Petitioner has not

responded in any manner to the Court's Order (Doc. 2), nor has his

copy of the Order and forms been returned to the Court. 

Due to Petitioner's failure to comply with the Court's Order

of February 7, 2007 (Doc. 2), and 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, 82 S.Ct. 1386,

8 L.Ed.2d 734 (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);

Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied,

Ballard v. Volunteers of America, 493 U.S. 1084, 110 S.Ct. 1145,

107 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1990); 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. 1983); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th

Cir. 1983). Accord Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 111 S.Ct.

2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (ruling that federal courts' inherent

power to manage their own proceedings authorized the imposition of

Case 1:07-cv-00047-CB-B Document 3 Filed 09/11/07 Page 2 of 4
3

attorney's fees and related expenses as a sanction; Malautea v.

Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545-46 (11th Cir. 1993)(finding

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 11th day of September, 2007.

 

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00047-CB-B Document 3 Filed 09/11/07 Page 3 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 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.

Case 1:07-cv-00047-CB-B Document 3 Filed 09/11/07 Page 4 of 4