Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00148/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00148-0/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALVIN JAMES JOHNSON, :

: 

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 16-0148-KD-M 

: 

WARDEN CARTER DAVENPORT, :

et al., :

:

 Defendant. : 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, 

filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with a Motion 

to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees. This action was referred 

to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. 

Ala. Gen.LR 72(a)(2)(R), and is now before the Court for 

Plaintiff’s failure to pay the partial filing fee. 

On May 9, 2016, after review of Plaintiff's Motion to 

Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 3), the Court ordered 

Plaintiff to pay a $10.66 partial filing fee not later than June 

6, 2016 (Doc. 4). Plaintiff was warned that his failure to 

comply with the Order within the prescribed time would result in 

the dismissal of his action for failure to prosecute and to obey 

the Court’s Order. The Order was mailed to Plaintiff at Holman 

Correctional Facility, Holman 3700, Atmore, Alabama, his last 

known address. To date, Plaintiff has not paid the partial 

Case 1:16-cv-00148-KD-M Document 5 Filed 07/07/16 Page 1 of 4
2

filing fee, nor has the Order been returned to the Court as 

undeliverable. The Court finds that Plaintiff has abandoned 

prosecution of this action.

Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order 

and to prosecute this action by paying the partial filing fee, 

the Court recommends that, through its inherent powers, this 

action be dismissed without prejudice. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 

U.S. 626, 630-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1389 (1962) (“The authority of 

a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has 

generally been considered an ‘inherent power’ governed not by 

rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts 

to manage their own affairs so as to achieved the orderly and 

expeditious disposition of cases.”); Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 

479, 483 (11th Cir. 2006) (recognizing a district court’s 

inherent power to enforce orders and provide for the efficient 

disposition of litigation); Wilson v. Sargent, 313 F.3d 1315, 

1331-32 & n.7 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that a prisoner’s 

failure to pay the partial filing fee under § 1915 is a basis 

for dismissal); see generally Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V 

Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337-38 (11th Cir. 2005) (discussing 

dismissals pursuant to the court’s inherent power and dismissals 

based on Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 

concluding that only a dismissal with prejudice requires 

findings of contumacious conduct and that lesser sanctions will 

Case 1:16-cv-00148-KD-M Document 5 Filed 07/07/16 Page 2 of 4
3

not suffice). 

In the present action, if plaintiff disputes the finding of 

failure to pay the partial filing fee and wants to proceed with 

the litigation of his action, he shall set forth in an objection 

to the report and recommendation the reasons for his failure to 

pay. Wilson, 414 F.3d at 1320 (citing to Hatchet v. Nettles,

201 F.3d 651, 654 (5th Cir. 2000) (finding that an objection to 

a recommendation is an acceptable means to ascertain the steps 

taken by a prisoner to comply with the order to a pay partial 

filing fee)).

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all 

parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to 

this recommendation or anything in it must, within fourteen (14) 

days of the date of service of this document, file specific 

written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b); S.D. ALA. Gen.LR 72(c). The 

parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] 

party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or 

recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives 

the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order 

based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the 

Case 1:16-cv-00148-KD-M Document 5 Filed 07/07/16 Page 3 of 4
4

party was informed of the time period for objecting and the 

consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of 

a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for 

plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th 

Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be specific, an objection must 

identify the specific finding or recommendation to which 

objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and 

specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An 

objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the 

briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific.

DONE this 7th day of July, 2016.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:16-cv-00148-KD-M Document 5 Filed 07/07/16 Page 4 of 4