Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_15-cv-00719/USCOURTS-almd-3_15-cv-00719-0/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 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

SHAUTAVIS MITCHELL, #292 418, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-719-MHT

) [WO]

TERRY MCINTYRE, )

)

Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On October 20, 2015, the court directed Plaintiff to forward to the Clerk of Court an 

initial partial filing fee in the amount of $45.54. Doc. No. 5. Plaintiff was cautioned that his

failure to comply with the October 20 order would result in a Recommendation that his 

complaint be dismissed, and was allowed until November 10, 2015 to comply. Id. The requisite 

time has passed and Plaintiff has not provided the court with the initial partial filing fee.

Consequently, the court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate for Plaintiff’s failure 

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 failure to prosecute this action and comply with 

the orders of this court. 

It is further ORDERED that on or before December 7, 2015, 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, 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.

Case 3:15-cv-00719-MHT-GMB Document 6 Filed 11/20/15 Page 1 of 2
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 20th day of November, 2015.

 /s/ Gray M. Borden 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-00719-MHT-GMB Document 6 Filed 11/20/15 Page 2 of 2