Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_16-cv-00103/USCOURTS-almd-1_16-cv-00103-0/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

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRIAN JAKE PARSONS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-103-MHT

) [WO] 

WILLIAM K. MADDOX, SHERIFF, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on February 17, 2016. On February 22,

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, as supplemented, on June 24, 2016, and July 12, 2016, which contained relevant 

evidentiary materials rebutting the allegations in the complaint. Docs. 18, 20. Upon review of this 

report, the court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ answer and 

written report. Doc. 21. 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 2. 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 court’s July 18, 

2016, order expired on August 5, 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 1:16-cv-00103-MHT-SRW Document 23 Filed 09/20/16 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 indigent. 

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 Fed.Appx. 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

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 

and to serve a copy on the parties. The parties may file any objections to this Recommendation on 

or before October 4, 2016. Any objections filed must specifically identify the factual findings 

and legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which a party objects. 

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 1:16-cv-00103-MHT-SRW Document 23 Filed 09/20/16 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, on this the 20th day of September, 2016.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

Susan Russ Walker

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:16-cv-00103-MHT-SRW Document 23 Filed 09/20/16 Page 3 of 3