Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00058/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-00058-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

“A district court may dismiss sua sponte [for want of prosecution], with or without notice to

1

the parties, incident to its inherent powers.” Rogers v. Kroger Co., 669 F.2d 317, 319 -320 (5 Cir. th

1982). As the Supreme Court recognized in Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-631 (1962),

“[t]he power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition

(continued...)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES J. BELSER, III )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 2:06-CV-00058-MEF

)

) [wo]

MONTGOMERY WATSON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

By ORDER filed February 8, 2006, this court ordered the pro se plaintiff, Charles J. Belser, III,

to appear at 3:00 p.m. on February 27, 2006, in District Court 4A, for a hearing pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), “made necessary because the Complaint is woefully deficient with respect to

the person being sued and the basis for the lawsuit.” The court advised:

Plaintiff shall be prepared to discuss his claim and evidentiary support sufficiently for

the court to decide if he should be given an opportunity to file an amended

complaint. Plaintiff’s attendance at this hearing is mandatory, and failure to

attend shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Doc. 5)

The Plaintiff failed to appear as scheduled. The court has confirmed the Clerk’s transmittal

of the Order to the Plaintiff by United States Mail on February 8, 2006, directed to his post office box

of record; the mail was not returned. Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the

Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of prosecution.1

Case 2:06-cv-00058-MEF-DRB Document 6 Filed 02/28/06 Page 1 of 2
(...continued) 1

of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” Nonetheless, the

“severe sanction of a dismissal or default judgment is appropriate only as a last resort, when less

drastic sanctions would not ensure compliance with the court's orders.” Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co.,

Ltd., 987 F.2d 1536, 1542 (11 Cir.1993), citing Navarro v. Cohan, 856 F.2d 141, 142 (11 Cir.1988). th th

2

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff file any objections to this Recommendation not

later than March 14, 2006. 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 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 th

F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981)(en banc), th th

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 28 day of February, 2006. th

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

DELORES R. BOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00058-MEF-DRB Document 6 Filed 02/28/06 Page 2 of 2