Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00466/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00466-0/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

DEVIN C. PEARSON, *

*

 Plaintiff, *

*

vs. * CIVIL ACTION NO.15-00466-KD-B

 *

SHERIFF HUEY “HOSS” MACK, *

et al., *

*

 Defendants. *

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action is before the Court on review. Plaintiff Devin C. 

Pearson, who is proceeding pro se, filed a complaint seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a motion to proceed without prepayment 

of fees(Docs. 1, 2). At the time Pearson initiated this action, he 

listed his address as the Baldwin County Corrections Center, 200 Hand 

Avenue, Bay Minette, AL 36507. (Doc. 1). Upon consideration, the 

Court, in an order dated October 26, 2015, denied Pearson’s motion 

because it was deficient, but granted him leave to re-file his motion 

with the required copy of the institutional record of his inmate 

account by November 16, 2015. (Doc. 3). The order was mailed to 

Pearson at the address of record provided by him; however, it was 

returned to the Court with the notation “RETURNED TO SENDER – Not 

at this Address.” (Doc. 4). The Court has confirmed with the Baldwin 

County Corrections Center that Pearson has been released. Because 

Pearson is no longer in custody, and because he has not kept the Court 

appraised of his current address, the Court has no means by which 

Case 1:15-cv-00466-KD-B Document 5 Filed 11/17/15 Page 1 of 3
2

to communicate with him, and can only surmise that he has lost interest 

in this action. 

In light of the above, 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 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); Blunt v. U. S. Tobacco 

Co., 856 F.2d 192 (6th Cir. 1988) (unpublished); 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) (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. 1993) (the court’s 

inherent power to manage actions before it permitted the imposition 

of fines), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 683, 114 S. Ct. 181, 126 L. Ed.

2d 140 (1993).

Case 1:15-cv-00466-KD-B Document 5 Filed 11/17/15 Page 2 of 3
3

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS 

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all 

parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this 

recommendation or anything in it must, within fourteen (14) days of 

the date of service of this document, file specific written objections 

with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P.

72(b); S.D. ALA. GenLR 72(c). The parties should note that under 

Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate 

judge’s findings or provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the 

right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on 

unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed 

of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for 

failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, 

the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the 

interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be specific, an 

objection must identify the specific finding or specify the place 

in the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed 

determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by 

reference or refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge is 

not specific.

DONE this 17th day of November, 2015.

 /S/SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00466-KD-B Document 5 Filed 11/17/15 Page 3 of 3