Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_08-cv-00311/USCOURTS-alnd-2_08-cv-00311-0/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 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT TAYLOR, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-00365-BH-B

CAPTAIN ROBINSON, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis, filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1).

This action, which was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4) for appropriate

action, is now before the Court for Plaintiff’s failure to comply

with Court’s Order and to prosecute the Third and Fourth Amended

Complaints. (Docs. 10 & 11). It is recommended that the Third and

Fourth Amended Complaints be dismissed without prejudice.

During the screening of Plaintiff’s action, the undersigned

determined that Plaintiff’s original Complaint and the First and

Second Amended Complaints (Docs. 1, 5, 7) concern Defendants and

incidents alleged to have occurred at the Limestone Correctional

Facility in the Northern District of Alabama. (Doc. 13). Whereas,

the Third and Fourth Amended Complaints (Docs. 10 & 11) concern Dr.

Barnes and incidents alleged to have occurred at Fountain

Correctional Center in the Southern District of Alabama. Plaintiff

Case 2:08-cv-00311-SLB -RRA Document 14 Filed 01/23/08 Page 1 of 5
2

was advised that these two sets of claims are separate and distinct

and that the original Complaint and the First and Second Amended

Complaints would be transferred to the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama, since they involve incidents

alleged to have occurred in that District. 

In regard to Plaintiff’s Third and Fourth Amended Complaints,

Plaintiff was ordered to advise the Court on or before August 30,

2007, if he wanted to proceed on his claims against Dr. Barnes,

which are alleged to have arose in the Southern District.

Plaintiff was cautioned that if he did not advise the Court within

the prescribed time, his claims that arose in the Southern District

would be dismissed without prejudice instead of being placed in a

new action in this Court. Plaintiff has not contacted the Court

since its Order of July 30, 2007 (Doc. 13) was entered.

Therefore, due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the

Court’s Order and to prosecute his claims against Defendant Barnes

in his Third and Fourth Amended Complaints, and upon consideration

of the alternatives that are available to the Court, it is

recommended that the Third and Fourth Amended Complaints be

dismissed without prejudice from this action 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 (1962);

Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 484 (11th Cir. 2006); World Thrust

Films, Inc. v. International Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d

Case 2:08-cv-00311-SLB -RRA Document 14 Filed 01/23/08 Page 2 of 5
1

The Eleventh Circuit in Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661

F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopted as binding

precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered

prior to October 1, 1981.

3

1454, 1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995); Mingo v. Sugar Cane 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); Hildebrand v. Honeywell, Inc., 622 F.2d 179, 181

(5th Cir. 1980).1 Accord Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 55

(1991) (finding 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.) (ruling that the court’s inherent

power to manage actions before it permitted the imposition of

fines), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 863 (1993).

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to this Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 23rd day of January, 2008. 

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:08-cv-00311-SLB -RRA Document 14 Filed 01/23/08 Page 3 of 5
4

Case 2:08-cv-00311-SLB -RRA Document 14 Filed 01/23/08 Page 4 of 5
5

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)©); Lewis v. Smith,

855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988). 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, in part, 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 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. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing party may

submit a brief opposing the objection within ten (10) days of being

served with a copy of the statement of objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72;

SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

3. 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.

Case 2:08-cv-00311-SLB -RRA Document 14 Filed 01/23/08 Page 5 of 5