Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00740/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00740-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

AAREN MATTHEWS, #241834, )

 )

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-740-MHT

)

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS AT KILBY )

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, )

 )

 Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Aaren Matthews (“Matthews”), a state inmate, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action 

asserting a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights stemming from the alleged denial of 

a mattress upon entry into the Kilby Correctional Facility. However, upon initiation of this 

case, Matthews 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 an original affidavit in 

support of a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by the required 

documentation from the inmate account clerk. Thus, the court did not have the information 

necessary to determine whether Matthews should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis

in this case and therefore entered an order requiring that Matthews provide the court with 

this information on or before September 29, 2016. Doc. 3 at 1–2. The court specifically 

cautioned Matthews that failure to comply with this order would result in a 

recommendation that this case be dismissed. Doc. 3 at 2.

As of the present date, Matthews has filed nothing in response to the aforementioned 

order. The court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. See Moon v. 

Case 2:16-cv-00740-MHT-GMB Document 4 Filed 10/12/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding that, as a general rule, dismissal for 

failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion where a litigant has been 

forewarned).

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

be dismissed without prejudice for the plaintiff’s failure to file the requisite fees or provide 

the court with necessary financial information in compliance with the order of this court. 

The plaintiff may file objections to the Recommendation on or before October 26, 2016. 

Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge’s 

Recommendation to which he objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not 

be considered by the District Court. The plaintiff is advised that this Recommendation is 

not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections 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 12th day of October, 2016.

/s/ Gray M. Borden 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00740-MHT-GMB Document 4 Filed 10/12/16 Page 2 of 2