Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00416/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00416-0/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

 NORTHERN DIVISION

BRANDON EARL LAKE, #283082, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-416-MEF

) [WO]

)

KIM TOBIAS THOMAS, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Brandon Earl Lake ("Lake"), a state inmate, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

asserting violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights stemming from alleged

systemic deficiencies at the Ventress Correctional Facility. However, upon initiation of this

case, Lake did not file the $350 filing fee and $50 administrative fee applicable when a

plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis, nor did he submit an original affidavit in

support of a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by the required

documentation from the inmate account clerk. Thus, the court did not have the information

necessary to determine whether Lake should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperisin this

case and therefore entered an order requiring that Lake provide the court with this

information on or before June 25, 2014. Order of June 5, 2014 - Doc. No. 3 at 1-2. The

court specifically cautioned Lake that failure to comply with this order would result in a

recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. at 2.

As of the present date, Lake has filed nothing in response to the aforementioned order.

Case 2:14-cv-00416-MEF-SRW Document 4 Filed 07/08/14 Page 1 of 2
The court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. 

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

be dismissed without prejudice for Lake's failure to file the requisite fees or provide the court

with financial information in compliance with the order of this court. It is further

ORDERED that on or before July 23, 2014, the parties may file objections to the 

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

Magistrate Judge'sRecommendation objected to. 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 recommendations in the

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

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

findings in the report 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); Stein v.

Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d

1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc) (adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the

former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981).

DONE, this 8th day of July, 2014.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:14-cv-00416-MEF-SRW Document 4 Filed 07/08/14 Page 2 of 2