Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00109/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00109-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN	THE	UNITED	STATES	DISTRICT	COURT	FOR	THE

SOUTHERN	DISTRICT	OF	ALABAMA

SOUTHERN	DIVISION

RONALD	MARK	DUDLEY, :

Plaintiff, 						:

vs. : CIVIL	ACTION		16-0109-KD-C

DR.	GEORGE	RUSYNICK,	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),	together	with	a	Motion	to	Proceed	Without	Prepayment	of	Fees	(Doc.		

2).		This	action	was	referred	to	the	undersigned	pursuant	to	28	U.S.C.	§	636(b)(1)(B)	and	

General	L.R.	72(b) for	appropriate	action.		It	is	recommended	that	this	action	be	dismissed	

without	prejudice	for	Plaintiff's	failure	to	pay	the	partial	filing	fee. 		

Upon	review	of	Plaintiff's	Motion	to	Proceed Without	Prepayment	of	Fees	(Doc.	2),	

the	Court	found	that	Plaintiff	was	required	to	pay	a	$48.33 partial	filing	fee.		On	March	15,	

2016,	the	Court	ordered	Plaintiff	to	pay	the	partial	filing	fee	by	April	5,	2016	(Doc.	3).		

Plaintiff	was	warned	that	his	failure	to	comply	with	the	order	within	the	prescribed	time	

would	result	in	the	dismissal	of	his	action.		Plaintiff	has	not	paid	the	partial	filing	fee,	nor	

has	he	otherwise	responded	to	the	Court’s	order.

Due	to	Plaintiff’s	failure	to	comply	with	the	Court’s	order	and	to	prosecute	this	

action	by	paying	the	partial	filing	fee,	the	Court	recommends	that,	through	its	inherent	

Case 1:16-cv-00109-KD-C Document 4 Filed 10/24/16 Page 1 of 3
powers,	this	action	be	dismissed	without	prejudice.		Link	v.	Wabash	R.R.,	370	U.S.	626,	630-

31,	82	S.Ct.	1386,	1389	(1962)	(“The authority	of	a	court	to	dismiss	sua	sponte	for	lack	of	

prosecution	has	generally	been	considered	an	‘inherent	power’	governed	not	by	rule	or	

statute	but	by	the	control	necessarily	vested	in	courts	to	manage	their	own	affairs	so	as	to	

achieved	the	orderly	and	expeditious	disposition	of	cases.”);	Zocaras	v.	Castro,	465	F.3d	

479,	483	(11th Cir.	2006)	(recognizing	a	district	court’s	inherent	power	to	enforce	orders	

and	provide	for	the	efficient	disposition	of	litigation);	Wilson	v.	Sargent,	313	F.3d	1315,	

1331-32	&	n.7	(11th Cir.	2002)	(holding	that	a	prisoner’s	failure	to	pay	the	partial	filing	fee	

under	§	1915	is	a	basis	for	dismissal);	see	generally	Betty	K	Agencies,	Ltd.	V.	M/V	Monada,

432	F.3d	1333,	1337-38	(11th Cir.	2005)	(discussing	dismissals	pursuant	to	the	court’s	

inherent	power	and	dismissals	based	on	Rule	41(b)	of	the	Federal	Rules	of	Civil	Procedure,	

and	concluding	that	only	a	dismissal	with	prejudice requires	findings	of	contumacious	

conduct	and	that	lesser	sanctions	will	not	suffice).		

In	the	present	action,	if	plaintiff	disputes	the	finding	of	failure	to	pay	the	partial	

filing	fee	and	wants	to	proceed	with	the	litigation	of	his	action,	he	shall	set	forth	in	an	

objection	to	the	report	and	recommendation	the	reasons	for	his	failure	to	pay.		Wilson, 414	

F.3d	at	1320	(citing	to	Hatchet	v.	Nettles, 201	F.3d	651,	654	(5th Cir.	2000)	(finding	that	an	

objection	to	a	recommendation	is	an	acceptable	means	to	ascertain	the	steps	taken	by	a	

prisoner	to	comply	with	the	order	to	a	pay	partial	filing	fee)).	

Notice of Right to File Objections

A copy of this Report and Recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner 

provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in it must, within 

Case 1:16-cv-00109-KD-C Document 4 Filed 10/24/16 Page 2 of 3
fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific written objections with 

the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); S.D. Ala. GenLR 

72(c)(1) & (2). The parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to 

object to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report and 

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to 

challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal 

conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on 

appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review 

on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be 

specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is 

made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely 

incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific.

DONE this the 24th day of October, 2016.

								s/WILLIAM	E.	CASSADY																												

							UNITED	STATES	MAGISTRATE	JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00109-KD-C Document 4 Filed 10/24/16 Page 3 of 3