Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00089/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00089-0/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 DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

TERRY MITCHELL, #228574, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-89-MHT

 ) [WO]

)

OFFICER ROWE, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause is before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed by Terry

Mitchell [“Mitchell”], a state inmate, on November 16, 2004 in the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The aforementioned court transferred the case

to this court on January 28, 2005. The defendants filed written reports in compliance with

the orders of this court in which they addressed Mitchell’s claims for relief. Specifically,

the defendants submitted relevant evidentiary materials, including a videotape of the cell

extraction about which the plaintiff complains, that clearly refute the allegations presented

in the instant cause of action. The court thereafter issued an order directing Mitchell to file

a response to the written reports. Order of April 15, 2005 - Court Doc. No. 20. This order

advised Mitchell that his failure to respond to the defendants’ written reports 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 1 (emphasis in original). Additionally, the

Case 2:05-cv-00089-MHT-WC Document 21 Filed 06/07/07 Page 1 of 3
2

order “specifically cautioned [the 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 for filing a response to this order expired on May 5, 2005. As of the

present date, Mitchell has filed nothing in opposition to the defendants’ written reports as

required by the orders of this court. 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 a less drastic

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

case is the proper course of action. Mitchell is an indigent inmate. Thus, the imposition

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

Mitchell has exhibited a lack of deference 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 Mitchell’s compliance would be unavailing.

Moreover, the responses and undisputed evidentiary materials filed by the defendants

indicate that Mitchell is not entitled to any relief in this cause of action. Consequently, the

court concludes that Mitchell’s abandonment of his claims, his failure to comply with the

orders of this court and his failure to prosecute this cause of action warrant dismissal of

this case. 

 CONCLUSION

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

Case 2:05-cv-00089-MHT-WC Document 21 Filed 06/07/07 Page 2 of 3
3

that this case be dismissed without prejudice. It is further 

ORDERED that on or before June 19, 2007 the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. 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 advisements in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by

the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation 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 7 day of June, 2007. th

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-00089-MHT-WC Document 21 Filed 06/07/07 Page 3 of 3