Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_14-cv-00659/USCOURTS-almd-3_14-cv-00659-0/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 

EASTERN DIVISION 

KENNETH WILLIAMS, #166 409, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-659-WKW 

 ) [WO] 

LAWRENCE ESTES, ) 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER I, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on September 4, 2012.1

 On July 16, 2014, 

the court directed Defendant to file an answer and written report addressing Plaintiff's claims for 

relief. In compliance with the court’s order, Defendant submitted an answer and written report 

on September 26, 2014, which contained relevant evidentiary materials refuting the allegations in 

the complaint. Upon review of this report, the court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a 

response to Defendant’s answer and written report. Doc. No. 15. 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 originally allotted Plaintiff for filing a response in compliance with the 

directives of the court’s October 3, 2014, order expired on October 24, 2014. Plaintiff sought 

three extensions to file his opposition which the court granted. See Doc. Nos. 17-22. The order 

                                                            

1 Plaintiff originally filed his complaint on September 4, 2012, in the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Alabama. On June 23, 2014, the United States District Court for the Northern District 

of Alabama transferred the complaint to this court. See Doc. No. 8. 

Case 3:14-cv-00659-WKW-CSC Document 23 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 3
granting Plaintiff’s most recent extension of time in which to file his response in compliance 

with the court’s October 3, 2014, order expired on March 9, 2015. Despite the generous response 

time afforded Plaintiff, as of the present date, he has failed to file a response in opposition to 

Defendant’s written report. The court therefore concludes this case should be dismissed. 

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 

an indigent individual. The imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against him 

would be ineffectual. Plaintiff’s inaction in the face of Defendant’s report and evidentiary 

materials refuting the claims raised suggest 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 

 It is further 

 ORDERED that on or before April 28, 2015, the parties may file an objection to the 

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

Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections 

Case 3:14-cv-00659-WKW-CSC Document 23 Filed 04/14/15 Page 2 of 3
will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised this Recommendation is not 

a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable. 

 Failure to file a written objection 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 

issues covered in the report and shall bar a 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). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, 

Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also 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 the 14th day of April, 2015. 

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

 CHARLES S. COODY 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:14-cv-00659-WKW-CSC Document 23 Filed 04/14/15 Page 3 of 3