Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_05-cv-00688/USCOURTS-almd-1_05-cv-00688-0/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

 SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES W. BAILEY, IV, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:05-CV-688-MEF

 ) [WO]

)

HOUSTON COUNTY JAIL, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case is before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed by James W. Bailey, IV,

["Bailey"], a state inmate, challenging actions which occurred during his confinement in the Houston

County Jail. At the time he filed this complaint, Bailey did not pay the $250.00 filing fee nor did he

submit an affidavit in support of a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Thus, the court

did not have the information necessary to determine whether Bailey should be allowed to proceed in

forma pauperis in this case and therefore entered an order requiring that Bailey provide the court

with such information. See Order of August 1, 2005 - Court Doc. No. 2 at 1-2. This order

specifically cautioned Bailey that his failure to comply with the order would result in a

recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. at 2. Bailey has filed nothing in response to the

aforementioned 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 Bailey's failure to comply with the orders of this court. It is further

ORDERED that on or before April 5, 2006 the parties may file objections to the

Case 1:05-cv-00688-MEF-DRB Document 3 Filed 03/23/06 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Judge's Recommendation 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 23rd day of March, 2006. 

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

DELORES R. BOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00688-MEF-DRB Document 3 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 2