Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00325/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00325-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DOUGLAS V. BLEDSOE, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v . ) CASE NO. 2:14-CV-325-MEF 

 ) [WO]

)

BRENDA KING, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a complaint filed by

Douglas V. Bledsoe [“Bledsoe”], a former state inmate. In the complaint, Bledsoe alleges

officers at Draper Correctional Facility subjected him to excessive force, i.e., sprayed him

with mace in an effort to gain his cooperation in photographing his tattoos prior to his

release from prison. Complaint - Doc. No. 1 at 10-15. Bledsoe concedes that the force about

which he complains occurred after he refused orders to have the photographs taken on

several different days prior to the incident. Id. at 10-13. Bledsoe further advises that within

twenty minutes of the challenged use of force he again refused orders to acquiesce to the

photographs. Id. at 13-14. Finally, Bledsoe acknowledges that during the incident at issue

he continued to “protest” and “refused” to voluntarily submit to the photographs. Id. at 15.

Pursuant to the orders of this court, the defendants filed a written report supported by

relevant evidentiary materials, including affidavits, internal reports, medical records and a

Case 2:14-cv-00325-WHA-CSC Document 31 Filed 08/15/14 Page 1 of 4
video recording of the incident, in which they address the claims for relief presented by

Bledsoe. The report and evidentiarymaterials refute the self-serving, conclusory allegations

presented by Bledsoe in the complaint. The defendants assert the evidence before the court,

including the video recording, indicates that officers used only that amount of force

necessary to attain Bledsoe’s compliance with lawful orders with respect to photographing

his tattoos and that the officers did not act sadistically or maliciously in their use of force

against Bledsoe. The defendants therefore argue that they did not violate Bledsoe’s

constitutional rights in extracting him from his cell for the purpose of obtaining photographs

of his tattoos. 

In light of the foregoing, the court issued an order directing Bledsoe to file a response

to the defendants’ written report. Order of June 17, 2014 - Doc. No. 30. The order advised

Bledsoe that his failure to respond to the 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. at 1 (emphasis in original). Additionally, the order “specifically cautioned [the

plaintiff] that [his failure] to file a response in compliance with the directives of this

order” would result in the dismissal of this civil action. Id. The time allotted Bledsoe for

filing a response in compliance with the directives of this order expired on July 7, 2014. As

of the present date, Bledsoe has failed to file a requisite response in opposition to the

defendants’ written report. The court therefore concludes that this case should be dismissed.

 The court has reviewed the file to determine whether a less drastic measure than

2

Case 2:14-cv-00325-WHA-CSC Document 31 Filed 08/15/14 Page 2 of 4
dismissal is appropriate. After such review, it is clear that dismissal of this case is the proper

course of action at this time. Bledsoe is an indigent individual. Thus, the imposition of

monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual. Additionally,

Bledsoe’s inaction in the face of the defendants’ report and evidence suggests a loss of

interest in the continued prosecution of this case. Finally, the undisputed evidentiary

materials submitted by the defendants, including but not limited to the video recording of the

incident, indicate that no violation of the Constitution occurred. It therefore appears that any

additional effort by this court to secure his compliance would be unavailing. Consequently,

the court concludes that the plaintiff’s abandonment of his claims and his failure to comply

with an order of this court warrant dismissal. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11 Cir. th

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

(11 Cir. 2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate’s § 1983 action th

for failure to file an amendment to complaint in compliance with court’s prior 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 

ORDERED that on or before August 29, 2014, the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive

3

Case 2:14-cv-00325-WHA-CSC Document 31 Filed 08/15/14 Page 3 of 4
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 advisements in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the

District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation 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 v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. th th

1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting th

as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close

of business on September 30, 1981.

Done this 15 day of August, 2014. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:14-cv-00325-WHA-CSC Document 31 Filed 08/15/14 Page 4 of 4