Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_11-cv-00449/USCOURTS-almd-3_11-cv-00449-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

SHARON PAYNE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11cv449-MHT

)

ZIMMER US, INC. )

)

Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case was removed to this court on June 10, 2011. On October 20, 2011, the court

granted plaintiff’s counsel’smotion towithdrawand permitted the plaintiff untilNovember 10,

2011, to secure new counsel. (Doc. # 16). When counsel did not appear, the court set this

matter for a status and scheduling conference on November 29, 2011. That conference was

subsequently rescheduled to December 13, 2011. (Doc. # 19). The plaintiff failed to appear

at the appointed time and place. 

On December 16, 2011, the court issued an order directing the plaintiff on or before

January 3, 2012, to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. 

(Doc. # 21). The plaintiff was specifically cautioned that if she failed to respond as required

by the order, the court would treat her failure to respond as an abandonment of the claims set

forth in the complaint and as a failure to prosecute this action and the undersigned would

recommend that this case be dismissed for such failure. The plaintiff has filed nothing in

response to the orders of the court. Moreover, mailsent to the plaintiff at the address provided

to the court has been returned undeliverable. See Docket Entry dated January 5, 2012. The

Case 3:11-cv-00449-MHT-CSC Document 22 Filed 01/06/12 Page 1 of 2
court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it isthe RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be

dismissed for the plaintiff’s abandonment of her claims, failure to prosecute this action and

failure to comply with the orders of the court. It is further

ORDERED that the partiesshall file any objectionsto the said Recommendation on or

before January 20, 2012. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or

general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are 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 reportshall barthe party froma de novo determination by the DistrictCourt

of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings

in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or

manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds

th

Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d

th

1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former

th

Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Done this 6 day of January, 2012.

th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 3:11-cv-00449-MHT-CSC Document 22 Filed 01/06/12 Page 2 of 2