Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_05-cv-00694/USCOURTS-almd-3_05-cv-00694-2/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

BILLY W. TRILLET, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05-CV-694-F

 ) WO

)

NURSE BURK, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On July 28, 2005, Billy W. Trillet [“Trillet”], a county inmate, filed this complaint

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 26, 2005, the court entered an order, a copy of which

the Clerk mailed to Trillet. Postal authorities returned this order because the plaintiff was

no longer at the address he had provided for service. In the order of procedure entered in

this case, the court specifically instructed the plaintiff to immediately inform the court of

any new address. See Order of August 3, 2005 - Court Document No. 4 at 5. In light of

Trillet’s failure to comply with this directive, the court entered an order requiring “that ...

[o]n or before September 26, 2005, the plaintiff ... show cause why this case should not be

dismissed for his failure to comply with the orders of this court and his failure to

adequately prosecute this action.” Order of September 15, 2005 - Court Doc. No. 8 at 1.

The order cautioned Trillet that his failure to comply with these directives would result in

Case 3:05-cv-00694-MEF-SRW Document 9 Filed 10/05/05 Page 1 of 3
2

a recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. at 2. As of the present date, Trillet has

filed nothing in response to the Sep tember 15, 2005 order. The court therefore concludes

that this case is due to be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

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

be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute this action and his

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

ORDERED that on or before October 18, 2005 the parties may file any objections to

the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. 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 advisements in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by

the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation 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). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d

Case 3:05-cv-00694-MEF-SRW Document 9 Filed 10/05/05 Page 2 of 3
3

33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en

banc), adopting as binding p recedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed

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

DONE, this 5th day of October, 2005.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00694-MEF-SRW Document 9 Filed 10/05/05 Page 3 of 3