Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_08-cv-00522/USCOURTS-almd-2_08-cv-00522-1/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 DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DAMIAN ALAN BLAIR, #256255, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-CV-522-TMH

) [WO]

)

BOB RILEY, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause of action is pending before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint

filed by Damian Alan Blair [“Blair”], a state inmate, on July 2, 2008. Pursuant to the

orders of this court, the defendants filed written reports supported by relevant evidentiary

materials in which they addressed the claims for relief presented by Blair. The reports and

evidentiary materials refute the allegations presented in the instant cause of action. The

court thereafter issued an order directing Blair to file a response to the written reports.

Order of September 19, 2008 - Court Doc. No. 15. The order advised Blair that his failure

to respond to the defendants’ written reports would be treated by the court “as an

abandonment of the claims set forth in the complaint and as a failure to prosecute this

action.” Id. at 1 (emphasis in original). Additionally, the order “specifically cautioned

[the plaintiff] that [his failure] to file a response in compliance with the directives of

this order” would result in the dismissal of this civil action. Id. The time allotted Blair

for filing a response in compliance with this order expired on November 14, 2008. As of

Case 2:08-cv-00522-TMH-WC Document 18 Filed 12/05/08 Page 1 of 3
2

the present date, Blair has failed to file the requisite response in opposition to the

defendants’ written reports. In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that this case

should be dismissed.

The court has reviewed the file in this case to determine whether a less drastic

measure than dismissal is appropriate. After such review, it is clear that dismissal of this

case without prejudice is the proper course of action. Blair is an indigent inmate. Thus,

the imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual.

Additionally, Blair has exhibited a lack of deference for this court and its authority as he

has failed to comply with the directives of the orders entered in this case. It is therefore

apparent that any additional effort by this court to secure Blair’s compliance would be

unavailing. Consequently, the court concludes that the plaintiff’s abandonment of his

claims, his failure to comply with the orders of this court and his failure to properly

continue prosecution of this cause of action warrant dismissal of this case. 

 CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge

that this case be dismissed without prejudice. It is further 

ORDERED that on or before December 18, 2008 the parties may file objections to

the Recommendation. 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

Case 2:08-cv-00522-TMH-WC Document 18 Filed 12/05/08 Page 2 of 3
3

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 advisements in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by

the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation 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 5 day of December, 2008. th

 /s/ Wallace Capel,Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-00522-TMH-WC Document 18 Filed 12/05/08 Page 3 of 3