Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00437/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00437-0/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

DAVID E. YOW, JR., :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-00437-KD-B

MOBILE COUNTY SHERIFF'S :

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

:

Defendants.

:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed

a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1), together with a Motion

to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees. (Doc. 7). This action was

referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4), and is now before the

Court due to Plaintiff’s failure to pay the partial filing fee. 

Following a review of Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Without

Prepayment of Fees, the Court, on February 21, 2007, ordered

Plaintiff to pay a $50.00 partial filing fee by March 30, 2007,

(Doc. 8). Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply with the

Order within the prescribed time would result in the dismissal of

his action. Plaintiff has not paid the partial filing fee, nor has

his copy of the Court’s Order been returned to the Court.

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

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

upon consideration of the alternatives that are available to the

Case 1:06-cv-00437-KD-B Document 9 Filed 04/12/07 Page 1 of 4
2

Court, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without

prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure as no other lesser sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash

R. R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962)

(interpreting Rule 41(b) not to restrict the court's inherent

authority to dismiss sua sponte an action for lack of prosecution);

World Thrust Films, Inc. v. International Family Entertainment,

Inc., 41 F.3d 1454, 1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995); Mingo v. Sugar Cane

Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Goforth v.

Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985); Jones v. Graham, 709

F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983). Accord Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.,

501 U.S. 32, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (ruling that

federal courts' inherent power to manage their own proceedings

authorized the imposition of attorney's fees and related expenses

as a sanction); Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545-

46 (11th Cir.)(finding that the court’s inherent power to manage

actions before it permitted the imposition of fines), cert. denied,

510 U.S. 863, 114 S.Ct. 181, 126 L.Ed.2d 140 (1993). 

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to this Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 11th day of April 2007.

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00437-KD-B Document 9 Filed 04/12/07 Page 2 of 4
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of this

document, file specific written objections with the clerk of court.

Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the district

judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an attack, on

appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate judge. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir.

1988). The procedure for challenging the findings and

recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out in more detail

in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides, in part, that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a

“Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days after being served with

a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time is

established by order. The statement of objection shall

specify those portions of the recommendation to which

objection is made and the basis for the objection. The

objecting party shall submit to the district judge, at

the time of filing the objection, a brief setting forth

the party’s arguments that the magistrate judge’s

recommendation should be reviewed de novo and a different

disposition made. It is insufficient to submit only a

copy of the original brief submitted to the magistrate

judge, although a copy of the original brief may be

submitted or referred to and incorporated into the brief

in support of the objection. Failure to submit a brief

in support of the objection may be deemed an abandonment

of the objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a

Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can

be appealed.

2. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing

party may submit a brief opposing the objection within ten (10)

days of being served with a copy of the statement of objection.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

3. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the magistrate

judge finds that the tapes and original records in this action are

adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to

Case 1:06-cv-00437-KD-B Document 9 Filed 04/12/07 Page 3 of 4
this recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is

advised that a judicial determination that transcription is

necessary is required before the United States will pay the cost of

the transcript.

/s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00437-KD-B Document 9 Filed 04/12/07 Page 4 of 4