Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00863/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00863-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JERMAINE OLIVER, #188 519, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-863-WKW

 ) 

DR. T. SIDDIQ, )

)

Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a state inmate, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on October 31, 2016. Plaintiff 

did not submit the $350 filing fee or $50 administrative fee and, instead, filed a document seeking 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis before this court. Doc. 2. In support of this request, Plaintiff

provided financial information necessary to determine the average monthly balance in, and the 

average monthly deposits to, his inmate account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the 

filing of this complaint.

After a thorough review of the financial information provided by Plaintiff and pursuant to 

the requisite provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A), the court determined that Plaintiff owed an 

initial partial filing fee of $4.53. Doc. 3. The court ordered that Plaintiff pay the initial partial 

filing fee on or before November 30, 2016. Doc. 3. In addition, this order specifically informed 

Plaintiff “that it is his responsibility to submit the appropriate paperwork to the prison 

account clerk for transmission of his funds to this court for payment of the initial partial 

filing fee.” Doc. 3 (emphasis in original). The order also “advised [Plaintiff] that if he is unable 

to procure the initial partial filing fee within the time allowed by this court he must inform the 

court of such inability and request an extension of time within which to file the fee.” Doc. 3.

Case 2:16-cv-00863-WKW-GMB Document 4 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 3
2

Moreover, the court specifically cautioned Plaintiff that failure to pay the requisite fee within the 

time allowed by the court would result in a recommendation “that his case be dismissed and such 

dismissal will not be reconsidered unless exceptional circumstances exist.” Doc. 3. 

Plaintiff has failed to pay the initial partial filing fee within the time allowed by the court. 

The court, therefore, concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. Moon v. 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); see Tanner v. Neal, 232 F. 

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). 

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

DISMISSED without prejudice for the failure of Plaintiff to pay the initial partial filing fee in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A) as ordered by this court. 

It is further ORDERED that on or before February 2, 2017, Plaintiff may file an objection 

to this recommendation. Plaintiff must specifically identify the factual findings and legal 

conclusions in the recommendation to which objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or general 

objections will not be considered. 

Failure to file a written objection 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 unobjectedto factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of 

Case 2:16-cv-00863-WKW-GMB Document 4 Filed 01/19/17 Page 2 of 3
3

plain error or manifest injustice. 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 19th day of January, 2017.

/s/ Gray M. Borden 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00863-WKW-GMB Document 4 Filed 01/19/17 Page 3 of 3