Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00081/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00081-0/pdf.json

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

---

1 This is the second report and recommendation issued by the undersigned Magistrate Judge. 

On April 14, 2005 the undersigned recommended dismissal of this action for plaintiff’s failure to file his

complaint and motion for in forma pauperis status on court forms as ordered. (Doc. 4) Thereafter,

plaintiff filed an objection and amendment to the complaint. (Doc. 6) On April 29, 2005 the

undersigned withdrew the report and recommendation and plaintiff was given a second opportunity to

file his complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis on court forms. (Doc. 8) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE KEVIN WILLIAMS, )

 )

 Plaintiff, )

 )

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION 05-0081-WS-D

 )

BALDWIN COUNTY CORRECTION )

CENTER, et al., )

 )

 Defendants. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 1

Willie Kevin Williams, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed a complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 10, 11) This action was

referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

72.2 (c)(4), and is now before the court on plaintiff’s failure to pay the partial filing fee and failure to

comply with the court’s orders. 

Plaintiff filed the instant complaint, along with a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees,

on or about May 16, 2005. (Docs. 10, 11) On June 22, 2005 the undersigned Magistrate Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00081-WS-D Document 15 Filed 10/31/05 Page 1 of 4
2

entered an order granting plaintiff’s motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and directing plaintiff

to remit a partial filing fee of $4.34 to the court no later than July 12, 2005. (Doc. 13) Plaintiff was

cautioned that the failure to obey the court’s orders would result in a recommendation of dismissal of

this action. (Id.) Over three (3) months have lapsed since the court’s order directing plaintiff to remit

the fee. To date the partial filing fee of $ 4.34 has not been paid to the court and plaintiff has failed to

respond to the court’s order in any manner. Further, the court’s order directing plaintiff to remit the

partial filing fee has not been returned as undeliverable for any reason. 

Upon consideration of the alternatives that are available to the court, it is the recommendation

of the undersigned Magistrate Judge 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). 

The attached sheet contains important information regarding objections to this Report and

Case 1:05-cv-00081-WS-D Document 15 Filed 10/31/05 Page 2 of 4
3

Recommendation.

DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October 2005.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00081-WS-D Document 15 Filed 10/31/05 Page 3 of 4
4

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). 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.

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00081-WS-D Document 15 Filed 10/31/05 Page 4 of 4