Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00619/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00619-3/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

 ______________________________

CHARLES ANTHONY KEGLER, #127 802 *

Plaintiff, *

v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-619-F

(WO)

GWENDOLYN MOSLEY, et al., *

Defendants. *

 __________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff filed this action on July 1, 2005. On August 15, 2005 the court directed the

Clerk of Court to serve a copy of the complaint on defendants. 

On August 15, 2005 the envelope containing Nurse Teal's copy of t he comp laint was

returned to the court as undeliverable. Consequently, on August 30, 2005 the court entered

an order which notified Plaintiff that service of process had not been obtained on

Defendant Teal. (See Doc. No. 10.) This order advised Plaintiff that if a person had not

been served, he/she was not a party to this lawsuit except in very unusual circumstances.

Plaintiff was, therefore, directed to furnish the Clerk’s Office with a correct address for

Nurse Teal. The above-referenced orders further advised Plaintiff that the court would not

continue to monitor this case to ensure that the defendants Plaintiff wished to sue had

Case 2:05-cv-00619-MEF-SRW Document 27 Filed 11/04/05 Page 1 of 3
2

been served. Plaintiff was informed that this was his responsibility. The order also

informed Plaint iff that if he failed to comply with the court’s directives, Defendant Teal

would not be served, she would not be considered a p art y to this action, and this case

would proceed only against those defendants on whom service was perfected. 

Plaintiff has filed no response to the court’s August 30, 2005 order. The court,

therefore, finds that service of the complaint has never been p erfected on Defendant Teal

and no exceptional circumstances exist which warrant her inclusion as a defendant in this

case. Accordingly, Defendant Teal is due to be dismissed as a party to this complaint.

See Rule 4(m), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. Plaintiff's claims against Nurse Teal be DISMISSED,

2. Nurse Teal be DISMISSED as a party to this case; and

3. This case with respect to the remaining defendants be referred back to the

undersigned for further proceedings.

It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before November 23, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous,

Case 2:05-cv-00619-MEF-SRW Document 27 Filed 11/04/05 Page 2 of 3
3

conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the Dist rict Court . The parties

are advised t hat t his 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 t he party from a de novo determination by the

District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the p art y from attacking on

appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except up on

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 4th day of November, 2005.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00619-MEF-SRW Document 27 Filed 11/04/05 Page 3 of 3