Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00691/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00691-1/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KURT TAYLOR, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-0691-BH-M

 :

COI J. JOHNSON, et al., :

 :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed

a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1), together with a

Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 2). This

action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2 for appropriate action, and is

now before the Court for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and to

comply with the Court’s Order. 

Upon review of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) and Amendment

(Doc. 8), the Court found that they contained claims that were

not related to each other. Thus, on April 7, 2006, Plaintiff was

ordered to complete and file an Amended Complaint on this Court’s

current complaint form for a § 1983 action on or before April 28,

2006, containing one claim and any claims that could be shown

closely related to it (Doc. 9). Plaintiff was advised that his

failure to comply with this Order within the prescribed time

would result in the dismissal of this action for failure to

prosecute and to obey the Court Order. Plaintiff has not

Case 1:05-cv-00691-BH-M Document 10 Filed 06/29/06 Page 1 of 3
responded in any manner to the Court's Order (Doc. 9), nor has

Plaintiff's copy of the Order been returned to the Court. 

Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order

and to prosecute this action, and upon consideration of the

alternatives that are available to the Court, it is recommended

that this action be dismissed without 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 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

Case 1:05-cv-00691-BH-M Document 10 Filed 06/29/06 Page 2 of 3
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 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 29th day of June, 2006.

 s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00691-BH-M Document 10 Filed 06/29/06 Page 3 of 3