Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_06-cv-00480/USCOURTS-almd-3_06-cv-00480-1/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

 EASTERN DIVISION

 ________________________________

ANTONIO MARTINZEZ *

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 3:06-CV-480-MEF

 (WO)

SHERIFF JAY JONES, et al., *

Defendants. *

 ________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on May 26, 2006. On June 1, 2006 the

court directed Defendants to file an answer and written report addressing Plaintiff's claims

for relief. In compliance with the court’s order, Defendants submitted an answer and written

report on August 15, 2006 which contained relevant evidentiary materials refuting the

allegations presented in the instant complaint. 

The court then issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’

answer and written report. (Doc. No. 14.) Plaintiff was advised that his failure to respond

to Defendants’ answer and written 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.

(emphasis in original). Additionally, Plaintiff was "specifically cautioned that [his failure]

to file a response in compliance with the directives of this order" would result in the

dismissal of this case. Id. 

Case 3:06-cv-00480-MEF-VPM Document 17 Filed 10/12/06 Page 1 of 3
2

The time allotted Plaintiff for the filing of a response expired on October 3, 2006. As

of the present date, Plaintiff has filed nothing in opposition to Defendants’ answer and

written report as required by order filed August 17, 2006. In light of the foregoing, the court

concludes that this case should be dismissed.

 The court has reviewed the file in this case to determine whether less drastic sanctions

than dismissal are appropriate. After such review, it is clear that dismissal of this case is the

proper sanction. Plaintiff is an indigent state inmate. Thus, the imposition of monetary or

other punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual. Additionally, Plaintiff has

exhibited a lack of respect for this court and its authority as he has failed to comply with the

directives of the orders entered in this case. 

It is, therefore, apparent that any additional effort by this court to secure Plaintiff’s

compliance would be unavailing. Consequently, the court concludes that Plaintiff’s

abandonment of his claims, his failure to comply with the orders of this court, and his failure

to properly prosecute this cause of action warrant dismissal of this case. See Link v. Wabash

R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (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 (11 Cir. 1995). th

For the foregoing reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge

that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice.

 It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the

Case 3:06-cv-00480-MEF-VPM Document 17 Filed 10/12/06 Page 2 of 3
3

Recommendation on or before October 23, 2006. 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 (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

September 30, 1981.

Done this 12 day of October 2006. th

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:06-cv-00480-MEF-VPM Document 17 Filed 10/12/06 Page 3 of 3