Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00600/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00600-0/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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RAYMOND MATHIS, #140 252, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-600-MHT

 ) [WO]

K. WILSON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On October 11, 2016, the court entered an order granting Plaintiff fourteen days to file an

amended complaint. Doc. 7. Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the court’s 

October 11 order would result in a Recommendation that his complaint be dismissed. Id. On 

October 26, 2016, the court granted Plaintiff an additional thirteen days to comply with the court’s 

October 11 order that he file an amended complaint. Doc. 9. The requisite time has passed and 

Plaintiff has not complied with the orders of the court. Consequently, the court concludes that 

dismissal of this case is appropriate for Plaintiff’s failures to prosecute this action and comply with 

the orders of the court.

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

DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action and comply with the 

orders of this court.

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before December 16, 2016, Plaintiff may file an objection to the 

Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the factual findings and legal 

conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, 

Case 2:16-cv-00600-MHT-TFM Document 10 Filed 12/01/16 Page 1 of 2
conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. 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 

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, this 1st day of December 2016.

/s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00600-MHT-TFM Document 10 Filed 12/01/16 Page 2 of 2