Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00593/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00593-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DONNIE E. SHROPSHIRE, :

: 

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-00593-CB-M 

: 

STEWART HANLEY, et al., :

:

 Defendants. : 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, 

filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to 

Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit (Docs. 1, 2).

This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2, and is before the 

Court for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and to comply with 

the Court’s Order. 

On December 4, 2015, Plaintiff was ordered to complete and 

file this Court’s form for a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

and to either file this Court’s form for a motion to proceed 

without prepayment of fees or, pay the $400.00 filing fee not 

later than January 4, 2016 (Doc. 3). Plaintiff was warned that 

his failure to comply with the Order within the prescribed time 

would result in the dismissal of his action for failure to 

prosecute and to obey the Court’s Order (Doc. 3). The Order was 

Case 1:15-cv-00593-CB-M Document 4 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 4
2

mailed to Plaintiff at Mobile Community Based Facility, 2423 

North Beltline Highway, Mobile, Alabama 36610, his last known

address. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s 

Order, nor has the Order been returned as undeliverable. The 

Court finds that Plaintiff has abandoned prosecution of this 

action.

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

and to prosecute this action, and upon consideration of the 

alternatives that are 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 for failure to 

prosecute and to obey the Court's Order, as no other lesser 

sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R. R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 

82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388-89, 8 L.Ed.2d 734, 738 (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); 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). 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 

Case 1:15-cv-00593-CB-M Document 4 Filed 01/21/16 Page 2 of 4
3

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.)(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).

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all 

parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to 

this recommendation or anything in it must, within fourteen (14) 

days of the date of service of this document, file specific 

written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b); S.D. ALA. L.R. 7(c). The parties 

should note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party 

failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or 

recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives 

the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order 

based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the 

party was informed of the time period for objecting and the 

consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of 

a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for 

plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th 

Case 1:15-cv-00593-CB-M Document 4 Filed 01/21/16 Page 3 of 4
4

Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be specific, an objection must 

identify the specific finding or recommendation to which 

objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and 

specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An 

objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the 

briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific.

DONE this 21st day of January, 2016.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00593-CB-M Document 4 Filed 01/21/16 Page 4 of 4