Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00553/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00553-0/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

WAYNE WHITTEN, #288099, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-553-MEF

) [WO]

)

KIM TOBIAS THOMAS, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on June 3, 2014, seeking to challenge

violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights stemming from alleged systemic

deficiencies at the Ventress Correctional Facility. Plaintiff did not file the $350 filing fee

and $50 administrative fee applicable when a plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis,

nor did he submit a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the court

entered an order on June 11, 2014, directing Plaintiff to file either the $400.00

filing/administrative fees or an affidavit in support of a motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis accompanied byrelevant financial information fromthe inmate account clerk. Doc.

No. 3. Plaintiff’s copy of this order was returned to the court marked as undeliverable on

June 16, 2014. 

All parties have an affirmative duty to inform the court of any change of address

during the pendency of their cases. On June 17, 2014, the undersigned directed Plaintiff to

provide the court with his present address on or before June 24, 2014. Doc. No. 4. Plaintiff

Case 2:14-cv-00553-MEF-SRW Document 5 Filed 07/01/14 Page 1 of 3
was cautioned his failure to comply with this order would result in a recommendation that

this complaint be dismissed. Id. Plaintiff’s copy of the June 17, 2014, order was returned

to the court marked as undeliverable on June 23, 2014. As it appears clear that Plaintiff is

no longer residing at the service address he provided to the court upon initiation of this action

and has not provided this court with a new address for service, the undersigned concludes

that dismissal is appropriate. 

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 to

comply with the orders of this court. 

 It is further

ORDERED that on or before July 15, 2014, Plaintiff may file an objection to the 

Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or

general objections will not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is advised 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 issues covered in the report and shall bar a party from attacking on appeal factual

findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain

error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein th

2

Case 2:14-cv-00553-MEF-SRW Document 5 Filed 07/01/14 Page 2 of 3
v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of th

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

DONE, this 1 day of July, 2014. st

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:14-cv-00553-MEF-SRW Document 5 Filed 07/01/14 Page 3 of 3