Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00646/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00646-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JONATHAN L. PHILLIPS, )

 )

 Plaintiff, )

 )

v. )

 ) Case No.2:15-cv-646-WKW-TFM

 )

MONTGOMERY POLICE )

DEPARTMENT, et. al., )

 )

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 action was removed to this Court from the Circuit Court of 

Montgomery County on September 4, 2015. (Doc. 1). In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges 

that the Montgomery Police Department violated his Constitutional Rights when they used 

excessive force against him causing physical injuries. (Doc. 1 and attachments thereto). 

Thereafter, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, or Motion for More Definite 

Statement. (Doc. 2). The Court issued an Order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why 

this Motion should not be granted. (Doc. 3). The District Judge issued an Order pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636 referring this case to Magistrate Judge Terry F. Moorer. Following 

Plaintiff=s failure to respond to the show cause Order, the Court issued a second Order 

requiring Plaintiff to show cause for his failure to respond to the Court’s show cause 

order and to also file a response to the Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 9). In the Order the 

Case 2:15-cv-00646-WKW-TFM Document 11 Filed 01/26/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Court specifically advised Plaintiff as follows: 

The plaintiff is specifically cautioned that if he fails to file a response as 

required by this order, the court will treat his failure as an 

abandonment of the claims set forth in the complaint and as a failure 

to prosecute this action and the undersigned will recommend that this 

case be dismissed for such failure. 

(Doc. 19). Plaintiff failed file a response to the Motion to Dismiss as directed by the 

Court. The Plaintiff has further failed to file any request for an extension of time to file 

a response to the Motion to Dismiss. 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. Indeed, the Court concludes that Plaintiff=s failure to comply 

with the Orders of this Court requiring a response to the Motion to Dismiss warrants 

dismissal of this action. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F. 2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (As a 

general rule, where a litigant has 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 (11th Cir. 

2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate=s ' 1983 action for 

failure to file an amendment to complaint in compliance with court=s order directing 

amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply.)

For the above stated reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate 

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

Case 2:15-cv-00646-WKW-TFM Document 11 Filed 01/26/16 Page 2 of 3
3

ORDERED that the Plaintiff file any objections to this Recommendation on or 

before February 9, 2016. 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 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 26th day of January, 2016.

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-00646-WKW-TFM Document 11 Filed 01/26/16 Page 3 of 3