Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00592/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00592-0/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

 ____________________________

CLIFFORD S. FIELDS, #250 911 * 

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:07-CV-592-MHT

(WO)

MEGAN’S LAW, et al., *

Defendants. *

 ____________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On June 28, 2007 the court granted Plaintiff fifteen days to file with the Clerk of the

Court either the $350.00 filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

accompanied by an affidavit in support thereof. (Doc. No. 2.) Plaintiff was cautioned that

his failure to comply with the June 28 order would result in a Recommendation that his

complaint be dismissed. (Id.) The requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has not provided

the court with either the filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

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

failure to comply with the order of the court.

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

be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the order of this

court.

 It is further

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

Case 2:07-cv-00592-MHT-SRW Document 3 Filed 07/31/07 Page 1 of 2
Recommendation on or before August 13, 2007. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is

objecting. 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 recommendations in the

Magistrate 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 (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 31st day of July, 2007.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00592-MHT-SRW Document 3 Filed 07/31/07 Page 2 of 2