Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00787/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00787-0/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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CHRIS MADDOX, #192 714, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-787-TMH

) [WO]

KIM THOMAS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On October 18, 2011, the court granted Plaintiff ten days to show cause why his

complaint should not be dismissed for his failure to submit a prison account statement from

the account clerk at the Draper Correctional Facility as directed by order filed September 26,

2011. See Doc. Nos. 3, 4. Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the October

18 Order would result in a Recommendation that his complaint be dismissed. Id. The

requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has not complied with the order of the court. 

Consequently, the court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate for Plaintiff’s

failures to comply with the orders of the court and to prosecute this action.

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

be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to comply with the orders of the

court and to prosecute this action.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before November 17, 2011, the parties may file objections to

the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Case 2:11-cv-00787-TMH-WC Document 5 Filed 11/03/11 Page 1 of 2
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which a party objects. 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 Sec., 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 3rd day of November, 2011.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:11-cv-00787-TMH-WC Document 5 Filed 11/03/11 Page 2 of 2