Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00149/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00149-0/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 

JERRY ALAN WALKER, #208 534, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-149-WHA 

 ) [WO] 

ERIC NOBLE, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on March 4, 2016. On March 18, 2016, the 

court directed Defendants to file an answer and written report addressing Plaintiff’s claims for 

relief. In compliance with the court’s order, Defendants submitted an answer and written report 

on June 21, 2016, which contained relevant evidentiary materials refuting the allegations in the 

complaint. Doc. 13. Upon review of this report, the court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file 

a response to Defendants’ answer and written report. Doc. 14. The order advised Plaintiff that his 

failure to respond to the report would be treated by the court “as an abandonment of the claims set 

forth in the complaint and as a failure to prosecute this action.” Id. at 1. The order “specifically 

cautioned [Plaintiff] that [his failure] to file a response in compliance with the directives of this 

order” would result in the dismissal of this civil action. Id. 

The time allotted Plaintiff for filing a response in compliance with the directives of the 

court’s June 28, 2016, order expired on July 19, 2016. As of the present date, Plaintiff has failed 

to file a response in opposition to Defendants’ written report. The court, therefore, concludes this 

case should be dismissed. 

Case 2:16-cv-00149-WHA-WC Document 15 Filed 08/31/16 Page 1 of 3
The court has reviewed the file to determine whether a drastic measure less than dismissal 

is appropriate. After such review, dismissal is the proper course of action. Plaintiff is an indigent 

individual. The imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be 

ineffectual. Plaintiff’s inaction in the face of Defendants’ report and evidentiary materials refuting 

the claims raised suggests he does not seek to proceed with this case. It, therefore, appears that 

any additional effort by this court to secure his compliance would be unavailing. Consequently, 

the court concludes that Plaintiff’s abandonment of his claims and his failure to comply with an 

order of this court warrant dismissal. 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.); see also 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 amendment 

to complaint in compliance with court’s prior order directing amendment and warning of 

consequences for failure to comply). 

For the above stated reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that 

this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. 

 It is further 

 ORDERED that on or before September 14, 2016, the parties may file any objections to 

the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the factual findings and legal 

conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the parties object. Frivolous, 

conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. 

 Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the 

Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of 

factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive the right to challenge on 

Case 2:16-cv-00149-WHA-WC Document 15 Filed 08/31/16 Page 2 of 3
appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except upon 

grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 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, this 31st day of August, 2016. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:16-cv-00149-WHA-WC Document 15 Filed 08/31/16 Page 3 of 3