Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00057/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00057-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RONALD DALE BARNES, #261 261, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-57-MHT 

) [WO] 

CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was filed by Plaintiff on January 23, 2015. On March 

17, 2015, the court entered an order of procedure directing Defendants to file an answer and written 

report to Plaintiff’s complaint and amendments to the complaint. Docs. 20 & 23. The order also 

instructed Plaintiff to inform the court of any change in his address as all parties have an 

affirmative duty to inform this court of any address changes during the pendency of their action.

Doc. 20. 

 The court recently learned that Plaintiff is no longer housed at the Red Eagle Honor Farm,

which is the court’s last known address for him. See Doc. 13. Consequently, an order was entered 

on April 19, 2016, directing Plaintiff to inform the court of his present mailing address. Doc. 30.

Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with this order would result in a recommendation 

that this case be dismissed. Doc. 30.

On May 2, 2016, the envelope containing Plaintiff’s copy of the court’s April 19, 2016, 

order was returned to the court marked as “undeliverable.” As Plaintiff is no longer residing at the 

last service address he provided to the court, and he has not provided this court with a new address

for service, the undersigned concludes that dismissal of the complaint is appropriate. The court 

Case 2:15-cv-00057-MHT-GMB Document 31 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 2
2

has considered a remedy less drastic than dismissal, but it is imperative that the court and other 

litigants be able to communicate with Plaintiff, and they cannot do so under the present 

circumstances.

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

DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action properly and to 

comply with the orders of this court. 

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 

and to serve a copy on Plaintiff at his last known address.

It is further ORDERED that on or before May 23, 2016, the parties may file objections. 

Any objections filed must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the 

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the parties object. Frivolous, conclusive or general 

objections will not be considered by the District Court.

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 on this 9th day of May, 2016.

 /s/ Gray M. Borden 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00057-MHT-GMB Document 31 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 2