Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00219/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00219-0/pdf.json

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

---

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM SELTZER, JR., :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 07-0219-KD-C

OFFICER KERSEY, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a Mobile County Metro Jail prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed a

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 together with a Motion to Proceed Without

Prepayment of Fees. This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4), and is now before Court for plaintiff’s failure to

comply with the Court’s order and to prosecute this action. 

On August 28, 2007, plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint on or

before September 24, 2007. (Doc. 8) Plaintiff’s court-ordered amended complaint would

have superseded his original complaint and amendments and clarified his claims, and

corrected the deficiencies that the Court pointed out to him in his pleading of his claims. 

Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply with the Court’s order within the

prescribed time would result in the dismissal of his action. (Doc. 8) Plaintiff, however,

Case 1:07-cv-00219-KD-C Document 9 Filed 10/15/07 Page 1 of 4
1

The Eleventh Circuit in Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.

1981) (en banc), adopted as binding precedent the deci

sions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981.

2

has not filed an amended complaint as ordered. Furthermore, plaintiff’s copy of the

Court’s order has not been returned to the Court, nor has he taken any other action in

regard to this order. 

Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's order and to prosecute this

action, and upon consideration of the alternatives that are available to the 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 (1962); Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 484 (11th Cir.

2006); 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); Hildebrand v. Honeywell, Inc., 622 F.2d

179, 181 (5th Cir. 1980).1 Accord Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 55 (1991)

(finding 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.) (ruling that the court’s inherent power to

manage actions before it permitted the imposition of fines), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 863

(1993).

Case 1:07-cv-00219-KD-C Document 9 Filed 10/15/07 Page 2 of 4
The attached sheet contains important information regarding objections to this

Report and Recommendation.

DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of October, 2007.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00219-KD-C Document 9 Filed 10/15/07 Page 3 of 4
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION, AND

FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

l. 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

this 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);

Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). 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 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. 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 case are adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to 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/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00219-KD-C Document 9 Filed 10/15/07 Page 4 of 4