Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00014/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00014-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

Prior to entering the January 30, 2008 Order, Court personnel

contacted the Baldwin County Corrections Center and learned that

Plaintiff was transferred to Fairhope City Jail. Accordingly, the

Order was sent to Plaintiff at Fairhope City Jail.

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DANA ROSS STEGALL :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 07-00014-KD-B

 :

SHERIFF JIMMY JOHNSON, et al., :

 :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed

a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). This action was

referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4), and is now before the Court due to

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 

Plaintiff filed this Section 1983 action on January 4, 2007,

while incarcerated at Baldwin County Corrections Center. (Doc. 1).

On January 30, 2008, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff

to pay the $350.00 filing fee or in lieu thereof, complete and file

a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs by

February 19, 2008.1

 (Doc. 3). Additionally, the Court directed the

Clerk to send Plaintiff the appropriate form for a motion to

proceed without prepayment of fees. On February 11, 2008, the

Court’s Order directing Plaintiff to pay the $350.00 filing fee or

Case 1:07-cv-00014-KD-B Document 5 Filed 02/27/08 Page 1 of 4
2

in lieu thereof, complete a motion to proceed without prepayment of

fees on the Court’s form was returned with the notation “Return to

Sender.” (Doc. 4). As a result, Court officials contacted the

Fairhope City Jail and learned that Plaintiff had been released.

Officials at the Fairhope City Jail do not have a forwarding

address for Plaintiff, and to date, Plaintiff has not taken any

steps to update his address with the Court. 

Due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action and to

keep the Court notified of his current address, 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 as

no other lesser sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R. R., 370

U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (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 proceedings authorized the

imposition of attorney's fees and related expenses as a sanction);

Case 1:07-cv-00014-KD-B Document 5 Filed 02/27/08 Page 2 of 4
3

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). 

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to this Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 27th day of February, 2008.

 /s/SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 1:07-cv-00014-KD-B Document 5 Filed 02/27/08 Page 3 of 4
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything

in it must, within ten days of the date of service of this document, file

specific written objections with the clerk of court. Failure to do so

will bar a de novo determination by the district judge of anything in the

recommendation and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the factual findings

of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)( c); Lewis v. Smith,

855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988). The procedure for challenging the

findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out in more

detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides, in part, that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a magistrate

judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a matter excepted by

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a “Statement of Objection

to Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation” within ten days after

being served with a copy of the recommendation, unless a

different time is established by order. The statement of

objection shall specify those portions of the recommendation

to which objection is made and the basis for the objection.

The objecting party shall submit to the district judge, at the

time of filing the objection, a brief setting forth the

party’s arguments that the magistrate judge’s recommendation

should be reviewed de novo and a different disposition made.

It is insufficient to submit only a copy of the original brief

submitted to the magistrate judge, although a copy of the

original brief may be submitted or referred to and

incorporated into the brief in support of the objection.

Failure to submit a brief in support of the objection may be

deemed an abandonment of the objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a Court

of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can be appealed.

2. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing party may

submit a brief opposing the objection within ten (10) days of being

served with a copy of the statement of objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72;

SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

3. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). Pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the magistrate judge finds

that the tapes and original records in this action are adequate for

purposes of review. Any party planning to object to this recommendation,

but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial

determination that transcription is necessary is required before the

United States will pay the cost of the transcript.

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00014-KD-B Document 5 Filed 02/27/08 Page 4 of 4