Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00744/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00744-0/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

 NORTHERN DIVISION

DWIGHT DARIN THOMAS, #212942, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-744-WHA

) [WO]

)

ROBERT BENTLEY, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on August 6, 2014, challenging the

conditions of confinement to which he is subjected at the Decatur Work Release Facility. 

Plaintiff also complains that any funds correctional officials deduct from his work release

earnings in excess of 40% violates state law and, thereby, his federal constitutional rights to

due process. However, upon initiation of this case, Plaintiff did not file the $350 filing fee 1

and $50 administrative fee applicable when a plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis,

nor did he submit an original affidavit in support of a motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis accompanied by the required documentation from the inmate account clerk. Thus,

Ala. Code § 14-8-6 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 1

The employer of an inmate involved in work release shall pay the inmate’s wages directly to the

Department of Corrections. The department may adopt regulations concerning the disbursement of

any earnings of the inmates involved in work release. The department is authorized to withhold

from an inmate’s earnings the cost incident to the inmate’s confinement as the department shall

deem appropriate and reasonable. In no event shall the withheld earnings exceed 40 per cent of the

earnings of the inmate. After all expenses have been deducted by the department, the remainder of

the inmate’s earnings shall be credited to his or her account with the department....

Case 2:14-cv-00744-WHA-TFM Document 5 Filed 09/09/14 Page 1 of 3
the court did not have the information necessary to determine whether Plaintiff should be

allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this case and therefore entered an order requiring

that Plaintiff provide the court with this information on or before August 25, 2014. Order

of August 11, 2014 - Doc. No. 3 at 1-2. The court specifically cautioned Plaintiff that failure

to comply with this order would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id.

at 2.

As of the present date, Plaintiff has filed nothing in response to the aforementioned

order. The court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. 

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case

be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to file the requisite fees or provide the

court with financial information in compliance with the order of this court. It is further

ORDERED that on or before September 23, 2014, the parties may file objections to

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

Magistrate Judge'sRecommendation 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

2

Case 2:14-cv-00744-WHA-TFM Document 5 Filed 09/09/14 Page 2 of 3
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 9th day of September, 2014.

/s/ Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

3

Case 2:14-cv-00744-WHA-TFM Document 5 Filed 09/09/14 Page 3 of 3