Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00437/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00437-0/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

ANTHONY HORTON, #279 415, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-437-WHA

 ) [WO]

KUNTA MIMS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On June 16, 2016, the court directed Plaintiff to forward to the Clerk of Court an initial 

partial filing fee in the amount of $65.31 no later than July 7, 2016. Doc. 3. Plaintiff was cautioned 

that his failure to comply with this Order would result in a Recommendation that his complaint be 

dismissed. Doc. 3. The requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has not provided the court with the 

initial partial filing fee. Consequently, the court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate 

for Plaintiff’s failures to prosecute this action and comply with the orders of the court.

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

DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failures to prosecute this action and comply with the 

orders of this court. 

It is further ORDERED that on or before August 9, 2016, Plaintiff may file an objection 

to the Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the factual findings and 

legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, 

conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. This 

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

Case 2:16-cv-00437-WHA-GMB Document 4 Filed 07/26/16 Page 1 of 2
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 

factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive the right to challenge on 

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 26th day of July, 2016.

/s/ Gray M. Borden 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00437-WHA-GMB Document 4 Filed 07/26/16 Page 2 of 2