Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_05-cv-00469/USCOURTS-alsd-2_05-cv-00469-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Hale County Jail when he

commenced this action by filing his complaint in the United

States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. 

Subsequently, this action was transferred to this Court.

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER DEMOND BRAGGS, :

:

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-0469-BH-M

 :

SHERIFF LARRY JOHNSTON, :

et al., :

 :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a Hale County prison inmate proceeding pro se,

filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 together with a Motion

to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 5).1 This action,

which has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4), is now before the Court

for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and to comply with the

Court’s Order.

 On June 27, 2006, the Court ordered Plaintiff to inform the

Court by July 14, 2006, if he wanted to proceed with the

prosecution of this action (Doc. 21). The Order was mailed to

Plaintiff at Hale County Jail, P. O. Box 190, Greensboro, Alabama

36744. The Order was returned with the notation “Return to

Case 2:05-cv-00469-BH-M Document 23 Filed 07/19/06 Page 1 of 4
2

Sender No Longer at This Address.” Plaintiff was previously

advised that it is his responsibility to advise the Court

immediately of any change of address, e.g., when Plaintiff is

transferred, released, etc., or he would suffer the dismissal of

this action for failure to prosecute and to obey the Court’s

Order (Docs. 9, 12). Plaintiff has not advised the Court of a

change in his address, and there is no current address for him. 

The Court last heard from Plaintiff on September 6, 2005 when he

filed the complaint (Docs. 7, 8) and he did not respond to

Defendants’ Special Report filed on January 31, 2006 (Docs. 19,

20). Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has abandoned the

prosecution of this action.

Due to the expenses and time Defendants have expended in

defending this action (Docs. 17, 20) and to Plaintiff’s

abandonment and failure to obey the Court’s Order, and after

careful consideration of the alternatives available to the Court,

it is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as

no other lesser sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R. R., 370

U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (interpreting

Rule 41(b) not to restrict the court's inherent authority to

dismiss sua sponte an action for lack of prosecution); World

Thrust Films, Inc. v. International Family Entertainment, Inc.,

41 F.3d 1454, 1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995); Mingo v. Sugar Cane

Case 2:05-cv-00469-BH-M Document 23 Filed 07/19/06 Page 2 of 4
3

Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Goforth v.

Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985); Jones v. Graham, 709

F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983). Accord Chambers v. NASCO,

Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (ruling

that federal courts' inherent power to manage their own

proceedings authorized the imposition of attorney's fees and

related expenses as a sanction); Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co.,

987 F.2d 1536, 1545-46 (11th Cir.)(finding that the court’s

inherent power to manage actions before it permitted the

imposition of fines), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 863, 114 S.Ct. 181,

126 L.Ed.2d 140 (1993). 

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of

this document, file specific written objections with the clerk of

court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the

district judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an

attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate

judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d

736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404

(5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). The procedure for challenging

the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge is set

out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which

provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing

a “Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days after being served with

a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time

is established by order. The statement of objection

shall specify those portions of the recommendation to

which objection is made and the basis for the

Case 2:05-cv-00469-BH-M Document 23 Filed 07/19/06 Page 3 of 4
4

objection. The objecting party shall submit to the

district judge, at the time of filing the objection, a

brief setting forth the party’s arguments that the

magistrate judge’s recommendation should be reviewed de

novo and a different disposition made. It is

insufficient to submit only a copy of the original

brief submitted to the magistrate judge, although a

copy of the original brief may be submitted or referred

to and incorporated into the brief in support of the

objection. Failure to submit a brief in support of the

objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a

Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can

be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the

magistrate judge finds that the tapes and original records in

this action are adequate for purposes of review. Any party

planning to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay the

fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial determination

that transcription is necessary is required before the United

States will pay the cost of the transcript.

Done this 19th day of July, 2006.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00469-BH-M Document 23 Filed 07/19/06 Page 4 of 4