Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_12-cv-00687/USCOURTS-almd-1_12-cv-00687-2/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

 SOUTHERN DIVISION

KENNETH W. DAVIDSON, #274 925, ) 

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:12-CV-687-TMH

) [WO]

WARDEN SHARON )

MCSWAIN-HOLLAND, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was filed by Plaintiff on August 9, 2012. On August

24, 2012, the court entered an order of procedure which instructed Plaintiff, among other

things, to inform the court of any change in his address. Doc. No. 8, ¶6(h). The order further

informed Plaintiff that his failure to comply with this requirement would result in a

Recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. 

It recently came to the court’s attention that Plaintiff is no longer residing at the 

service address he provided to the court when he filed this complaint. Consequently, the

court entered an order on May 1, 2014, directing Plaintiff to provide the court with his

present address on or before May 12, 2014. Doc. No. 22. Plaintiff was cautioned that his

failure to comply with the court's May 1 order would result in a recommendation that this

case be dismissed. (Id.) Plaintiff has filed no response to the May 1 order and the time for

doing so has expired. 

As it appears clear that Plaintiff is no longer residing at the most recent service

Case 1:12-cv-00687-WKW-SRW Document 23 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 3
address he provided to the court and that he has not provided this court with a new address

for service, the undersigned concludes that dismissal of the complaint at this juncture is

appropriate. 

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

beDISMISSEDwithout prejudice for Plaintiff’s failures to prosecute this action properlyand

to comply with the orders of this court. 

 It is further

ORDERED that on or before June 20, 2014, the parties may file an objection to the 

Recommendation. Any objection 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 this

Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in

the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar a 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 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein th

v. 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 of the th

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

2

Case 1:12-cv-00687-WKW-SRW Document 23 Filed 06/06/14 Page 2 of 3
September 30, 1981.

DONE, this 6 day of June, 2014. th

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:12-cv-00687-WKW-SRW Document 23 Filed 06/06/14 Page 3 of 3