Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00025/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00025-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CHARLIE MITCHELL, # 224560, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

 v. ) Case No. 2:16cv25-WHA-GMB

) [WO]

KENNETH JONES, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On February 23, 2016, this court entered an order directing the petitioner to submit the 

$5.00 filing fee by March 14, 2016. Doc. 5. The petitioner was specifically cautioned that his 

failure to comply with the court’s order would result in a recommendation that this case be 

dismissed. Doc. 5 at 2.

The requisite time has passed, and the petitioner has failed to submit the filing fee. 

Consequently, this court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate. The court has 

considered whether a remedy less drastic that dismissal is appropriate, but determines that 

petitioner’s failure to comply is indicative of an abandonment of the claims in the petition.

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

DISMISSED without prejudice because the petitioner has failed to comply with the orders of this 

court.

It is further ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to this Recommendation 

or before April 14, 2016. A party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal 

conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made. Frivolous, conclusive, or 

general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate 

Case 2:16-cv-00025-WHA-GMB Document 6 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1) will bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and factual 

issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of the party to challenge on appeal 

the District Court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted or 

adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. 

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Stein v. Lanning Securities, Inc., 

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

DONE on this 31st day of March, 2016.

 /s/ Gray M. Borden 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:16-cv-00025-WHA-GMB Document 6 Filed 03/31/16 Page 2 of 2