Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00788/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00788-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Grantt Culliver
Respondent
Terrance Lorenzo Mosley
Petitioner

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRANCE LORENZO MOSLEY, :

Petitioner, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-00788-BH-B

GRANTT CULLIVER, :

Respondent. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed

a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), together with a Motion

to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 2). This action, which

has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B), Local Rule 72.2(c)(4), and the standing order of

general reference, is before the Court due to Petitioner’s failure

to prosecute and to obey the Court’s Orders. 

On December 13, 2006,Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed Without

Prepayment of Fees was denied, and he was ordered to pay the $5.00

filing fee within fifteen days. (Doc. 3). At Petitioner’s request,

the Court afforded him additional time in which to pay the filing.

The time for paying the filing fee was extended to January 19, 2007.

(Doc. 5). Petitioner was cautioned that his failure to comply with

the Court’s Order within the prescribed time would result in the

dismissal of his action. Notwithstanding, Petitioner has not paid

the filing fee, nor has he otherwise responded to the Court's last

Case 1:06-cv-00788-BH-B Document 6 Filed 03/14/07 Page 1 of 5
2

Order.

Due to Petitioner’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);

Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied,

Ballard v. Volunteers of America, 493 U.S. 1084, 110 S.Ct. 1145, 107

L.Ed.2d 1049 (1990); 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. 1983); 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. 1993)(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).

Case 1:06-cv-00788-BH-B Document 6 Filed 03/14/07 Page 2 of 5
3

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to this Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 14th day of March, 2007.

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 1:06-cv-00788-BH-B Document 6 Filed 03/14/07 Page 3 of 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)(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

Case 1:06-cv-00788-BH-B Document 6 Filed 03/14/07 Page 4 of 5
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.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00788-BH-B Document 6 Filed 03/14/07 Page 5 of 5