Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00127/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00127-0/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

NORTHERN DIVISION

RODRELL MOBLEY, #169 572, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-127-WHA

) [WO]

SGT. K. WILLIAM, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on February 26, 2016. On April 12, 2016, 

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 May 24, 2016 that contained relevant evidentiary materials refuting the allegations in the 

complaint. Docs. 12 & 13. Upon review of this report, the court issued an order directing Plaintiff 

to file a response to Defendants’ answer and written report. Doc. 14. The order advised Plaintiff

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.” Doc. 14 at 1. The order 

“specifically cautioned [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. Doc. 14 at 1.

The time allotted Plaintiff for filing a response in compliance with the directives of the 

court’s May 24, 2016 order expired on June 15, 2016. As of the present date, Plaintiff has failed 

to file a response in opposition to Defendants’ written report. As a result, the court concludes that 

this case should be dismissed.

Case 2:16-cv-00127-WHA-GMB Document 15 Filed 07/26/16 Page 1 of 3
The court has reviewed the file to determine whether a measure less drastic than dismissal 

is appropriate, but finds that dismissal is the proper course of action. Plaintiff is an indigent 

individual. The imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be 

ineffectual. Plaintiff’s inaction in the face of Defendants’ report and evidentiary materials refuting 

his claims suggests he does not seek to proceed with this case. It, therefore, appears that any 

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

court concludes that 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 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding 

that, as a general rule, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion where

a litigant has been forewarned); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232 F. App’x 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 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 9,

2016, 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 

Case 2:16-cv-00127-WHA-GMB Document 15 Filed 07/26/16 Page 2 of 3
injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); see Stein v. Reynolds Securities, 

Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982).

DONE on this 26th day of July, 2016.

/s/ Gray M. Borden 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:16-cv-00127-WHA-GMB Document 15 Filed 07/26/16 Page 3 of 3