Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_05-cv-00418/USCOURTS-almd-3_05-cv-00418-1/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

 EASTERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

 

JESSIE W. PEARSON *

Plaintiff, *

v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05-CV-418-T

(WO)

DAVID MCNAIR, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _______________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was filed in this court on May 6, 2005. On May

11, 2005 the court entered an order of procedure which instructed Plaintiff, among other

things, to inform the court of any change in his address. (Doc. No. 6.) 

The court recently ascertained that Plaintiff is no longer at the address he provided

to the court. Consequently, an order was entered on July 18, 2005 directing Plaintiff to

provide the court with his p resent address on or before August 1, 2005. ( Doc. No. 14.)

Plaintiff was caut ioned t hat his failure to comply with the court's July 18 order would result

in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. (Id.) Because Plaint iff has filed nothing

in response to this order, the court concludes that this case should be dismissed.

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

Case 3:05-cv-00418-MHT-SRW Document 15 Filed 08/05/05 Page 1 of 3
2

be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action properly and

to comply with the orders of this court. 

 It is further

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

Recommendation on or before August 17, 2005. Any objections filed must sp ecifically

identify t he findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous,

conclusive or general object ions 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 recommendat ions in

the M agistrate 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 (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 (11t h Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent

all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to t he close of business

on September 30, 1981.

Case 3:05-cv-00418-MHT-SRW Document 15 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 3
DONE, this 5th day of August, 2005.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00418-MHT-SRW Document 15 Filed 08/05/05 Page 3 of 3