Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_16-cv-00295/USCOURTS-almd-1_16-cv-00295-0/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 DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JESSIE LEWIS, JR., ) 

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CASE NO. 1:16-CV-295-WKW 

)

HOUSTON COUNTY JAIL - )

MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, )

 )

 Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Jessie Lewis, Jr. (“Lewis”), an inmate incarcerated at the Houston County Jail, 

initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on April 27, 2016. After reviewing the complaint 

and finding that Lewis had failed to name a proper defendant, the court determined that 

Lewis should be provided an opportunity to file an amendment to the complaint to correct 

this deficiency. A detailed order was therefore issued explaining the deficiency and 

providing Lewis instructions with respect to filing the amendment. Order of June 6, 2016

- Doc. No. 7. The court specifically advised Lewis “that this case will henceforth proceed 

only against the individuals named in the amendment to the complaint” and cautioned him 

that his failure to comply with the order would result in a Recommendation that this case 

be dismissed. Id. at 1-2. 

The time allowed Lewis to file the amendment expired on June 21, 2016. As of the 

present date, Lewis has failed to file an amendment to the complaint as required by this 

court. In light of Lewis’ failure to file the requisite amendment, the court concludes that 

Case 1:16-cv-00295-WKW-SRW Document 8 Filed 07/08/16 Page 1 of 3
2

this case should be dismissed. Tanner v. Neal, 232 Fed. App’x 924 (11th Cir. 2007) 

(affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate’s § 1983 action for failure to 

file an amended complaint in compliance with court’s prior order directing amendment and 

warning of consequences for failure to comply); see also Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 

837 (11th Cir. 1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for 

failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.).

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

be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to file an amendment to the

complaint as directed by this court. 

It is further

ORDERED that on or before July 22, 2016 the parties may file objections to the 

Recommendation. A party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal 

conclusions in the Recommendation to which the objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, 

or general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of 

legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of the party 

to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal 

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

or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); 11th Cir. R. 3-

Case 1:16-cv-00295-WKW-SRW Document 8 Filed 07/08/16 Page 2 of 3
3

1. See Stein v. Lanning Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. 

City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).

DONE, on this the 8th day of July, 2016.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

Susan Russ Walker

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:16-cv-00295-WKW-SRW Document 8 Filed 07/08/16 Page 3 of 3