Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00495/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00495-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DEANGELO SMITH, #299028, ) 

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CASE NO. 2:16-CV-495-WKW 

)

BRENNIS BASKINS, )

)

 Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Deangelo Smith (“Smith”), an indigent state inmate, in which he alleges that the defendant 

failed to protect him from attack by another inmate on April 3, 2016 at the Kilby 

Correctional Facility. Pursuant to the orders of this court, the defendant filed a special

report and supplemental report supported by relevant evidentiary materials, including 

affidavits and medical records, in which he addresses Smith’s claim for relief. The reports 

and evidentiary materials refute Smith’s self-serving, conclusory allegations. The 

defendant asserts, and the documented evidence indicates, that the defendant did not act in 

violation of Smith’s constitutional rights. 

 In light of the foregoing, the court issued an order directing Smith to file a response 

to the defendant’s written reports. Doc. 21. The order advised Smith that his failure to 

respond to the 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.” Doc. 21 at 1. 

Case 2:16-cv-00495-WKW-GMB Document 25 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Additionally, the 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. Doc. 21 at 1. The time allotted to Smith for filing a response in 

compliance with the directives of this order expired on October 28, 2016. Doc. 23. Smith

has failed to file the required response in opposition to the defendant’s written reports. The 

court therefore concludes that this case should be dismissed.

 The court has reviewed the file to determine whether a measure less drastic than 

dismissal is appropriate. After such review, the court concludes that dismissal of this case 

is the proper course of action. Specifically, Smith is an indigent individual. Thus, the 

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

Additionally, Smith’s inaction in the face of the defendant’s reports and evidence suggests 

a loss of interest in the continued prosecution of this case. Finally, the undisputed 

evidentiary materials submitted by the defendant demonstrate that no constitutional 

violation occurred. It therefore appears that any additional effort by this court to secure 

Smith’s compliance would be unavailing. Consequently, the court concludes that Smith’s

abandonment of his claims and his failure to comply with an order of this court warrant 

dismissal. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding that, as a 

general rule, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion where 

a litigant has been forewarned); Tanner v. Neal, 232 F. App’x 924 (11th Cir. 2007) 

(affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate’s § 1983 action for his failure 

to comply with court’s prior order directing amendment and warning of consequences for 

failure to comply). 

Case 2:16-cv-00495-WKW-GMB Document 25 Filed 11/21/16 Page 2 of 3
3

For the above stated reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate 

Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice.

It is further ORDERED that on or before December 5, 2016 the parties may file 

objections to the Recommendation. A party must specifically identify the factual findings 

and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which the objection is made. Frivolous, 

conclusive, or general objections to the Recommendation will not be considered. Failure 

to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo 

determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the 

Recommendation and waives the right of the party to challenge on appeal the district 

court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by 

the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. 11th Cir. R. 3-

1; 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 this 21st day of November, 2016.

 /s/ Gray M. Borden 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00495-WKW-GMB Document 25 Filed 11/21/16 Page 3 of 3