Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00032/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00032-0/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

KIRK DOVON WALTER, #165 998, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-32-WHA

) [WO]

JEFFERSON DUNN, COM., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Kirk Walter filed this civil action without remitting the $350 filing fee and $50 

administrative fee necessary for plaintiffs who are not proceeding in forma pauperis, and 

likewise failed to submit an original affidavit in support of a motion for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis accompanied by the required documentation from the inmate account clerk. 

Consequently, the court did not have the information essential for determining whether Walter

should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis and, therefore, entered an order requiring he

provide the court with the requisite information by February 2, 2016. Doc. 3. The court 

specifically cautioned Walter that failure to comply with this order would result in a 

recommendation this case be dismissed. See Doc. 3.

As of the present date, Walter has filed nothing in response to the aforementioned order, 

indicating his abandonment of this action. The court, therefore, concludes this case is due to be 

dismissed. See 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); Tanner v. Neal, 232 Fed. App’x 924, 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua 

sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate’s § 1983 action for failure to file an amended 

Case 2:16-cv-00032-WHA-GMB Document 4 Filed 03/08/16 Page 1 of 2
2

complaint in compliance with court’s prior order directing amendment and warning of 

consequences for failure to comply). 

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be 

dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to file the requisite fees or provide the court 

with financial information in compliance with the order of this court. 

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff may file any objections to this Recommendation on 

or before March 22, 2016. Any objections filed must specifically identify the factual findings 

and legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. 

Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court.

Failure to file written objections 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 

factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive the right to challenge on 

appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except 

upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see 

Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. 

Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).

DONE on this 8th day of March, 2016.

 /s/ Gray M. Borden 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00032-WHA-GMB Document 4 Filed 03/08/16 Page 2 of 2