Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_08-cv-00612/USCOURTS-almd-1_08-cv-00612-1/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 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 SOUTHERN DIVISION

 _____________________________

TERRANCE BAKER, #255 634 * 

Plaintiff, *

v. * 1:08-CV-612-TMH

 (WO)

JOHN CRAWFORD, DETECTIVE, *

et al.,

Defendants. *

 _____________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on July 30, 2008. On September 29,

2008 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 on November 10, 2008 which contained relevant evidentiary materials refuting

the allegations presented in the instant complaint. The court then issued an order directing

Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ answer and written report. (Doc. No. 18.) Plaintiff

was advised that his failure to respond to Defendants’ answer and written 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. (emphasis in original). Additionally, Plaintiff was

"specifically cautioned that [his failure] to file a response in compliance with the

directives of this order" would result in the dismissal of this case. Id. 

The time allotted Plaintiff for the filing of a response expired on December 3, 2008.

Case 1:08-cv-00612-TMH-TFM Document 19 Filed 12/15/08 Page 1 of 3
2

As of the present date, Plaintiff has filed nothing in opposition to Defendants’ answer and

written report as required by order filed November 12, 2008. In light of the foregoing, the

court concludes that this case should be dismissed.

The court has reviewed the file in this case to determine whether less drastic

sanctions than dismissal are appropriate. After such review, it is clear that dismissal of this

case is the proper sanction. Plaintiff is an indigent state inmate. Thus, the imposition of

monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual. Additionally,

Plaintiff has exhibited a lack of respect for this court and its authority as he has failed to

comply with the directives of the orders entered in this case. It is, therefore, apparent that

any additional effort by this court to secure Plaintiff’s compliance would be unavailing. 

Consequently, the court concludes that Plaintiff’s abandonment of his claims, his failure to

comply with the orders of this court, and his failure to properly prosecute this cause of action

warrant dismissal of this case. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (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 (11 Cir. 1995). th

For the foregoing reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge

that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice.

 It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the

Case 1:08-cv-00612-TMH-TFM Document 19 Filed 12/15/08 Page 2 of 3
3

Recommendation on or before December 29, 2008. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is

objecting. 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 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein th

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

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done, this 15 day of December 2008. th

/s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00612-TMH-TFM Document 19 Filed 12/15/08 Page 3 of 3