Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00489/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00489-0/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KENNETH JAMES PATTERSON, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

vs. :

: CIVIL ACTION 07-0489-CG-M

DEBBIE BECK, et al, :

:

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a Mobile County prison inmate proceeding pro se,

filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). This action,

which has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2 (c)(4), is before the Court

for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute.

On July 16, 2007, after review of Plaintiff’s Motion to

Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 2), Plaintiff’s Motion

was denied. Plaintiff was ordered to re-file his Motion to

Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees with the institutional record

of his inmate account reflecting transactions in his account for

the six-month period preceding the filing of his complaint, (Doc.

3). This Order was mailed to Plaintiff at Mobile County Jail, P.

O. Box 104, Mobile, Alabama 36601, his last known address, and

was returned by postal authorities with the notation “Return to

Sender No Longer Here.” 

Case 1:07-cv-00489-CG-M Document 5 Filed 09/24/07 Page 1 of 4
2

Because Plaintiff has not notified the Court of a change in

his address, the Court finds that Plaintiff has abandoned

prosecution of this action. Upon consideration of other

available alternatives, it is recommended that this action be

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute, as no other

lesser sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R. R., 370 U.S.

626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388-89, 8 L.Ed.2d 734, 738 (1962)

(interpreting Rule 41(b) not to restrict the court's inherent

authority to dismiss sua sponte an action for lack of

prosecution); World Thrust Films, Inc. v. International Family

Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454, 1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995);

Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir.

1989); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985);

Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1993). Accord

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d

27 (1991) (ruling that federal courts' inherent power to manage

their own proceedings authorized the imposition of attorney's

fees and related expenses as a sanction); Malautea v. Suzuki

Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545-46 (11th Cir. 1993)(finding that

the court’s inherent power to manage actions before it permitted

the imposition of fines), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 863, 114 S.Ct.

181, 126 L.Ed.2d 140 (1993).

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

Case 1:07-cv-00489-CG-M Document 5 Filed 09/24/07 Page 2 of 4
3

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of

this document, file specific written objections with the clerk of

court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the

district judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an

attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate

judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d

736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404

(5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). The procedure for challenging

the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge is set

out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which

provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing

a “Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days after being served with

a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time

is established by order. The statement of objection

shall specify those portions of the recommendation to

which objection is made and the basis for the

objection. The objecting party shall submit to the

district judge, at the time of filing the objection, a

brief setting forth the party’s arguments that the

magistrate judge’s recommendation should be reviewed de

novo and a different disposition made. It is

insufficient to submit only a copy of the original

brief submitted to the magistrate judge, although a

copy of the original brief may be submitted or referred

to and incorporated into the brief in support of the

objection. Failure to submit a brief in support of the

objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a

Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can

be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the

magistrate judge finds that the tapes and original records in

this action are adequate for purposes of review. Any party

planning to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay the

fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial determination

that transcription is necessary is required before the United

Case 1:07-cv-00489-CG-M Document 5 Filed 09/24/07 Page 3 of 4
States will pay the cost of the transcript.

DONE this 24th day of September, 2007.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00489-CG-M Document 5 Filed 09/24/07 Page 4 of 4