Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00435/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00435-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Allied Waste
Defendant
Derrick L. Bosley
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DERRICK L. BOSLEY, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-0435-WS-M

 :

ALLIED WASTE, : 

 : 

Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed a complaint

together with a Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees

(Docs. 1, 2). This action was referred to the undersigned

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule 72.2(d), and

is now before the Court for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing

fee and to comply with the Court’s Order. 

Upon review of Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Without

Prepayment of Fees, the Court found that payment of the $350.00

filing fee would not cause an undue hardship on Plaintiff (Doc.

2). On December 18, 2006, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the

$350.00 filing fee not later than January 16, 2007 (Doc. 3). 

Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply with the Order

within the prescribed time would result in the dismissal of his

action for failure to prosecute and obey the Court’s Order. 

Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, nor has he otherwise

responded to the Court's Order.

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

Case 1:06-cv-00435-WS-M Document 4 Filed 01/26/07 Page 1 of 3
2

and to prosecute this action by paying the filing fee, 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 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 the 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. 683, 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

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

Case 1:06-cv-00435-WS-M Document 4 Filed 01/26/07 Page 2 of 3
3

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 26th day of January, 2007.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00435-WS-M Document 4 Filed 01/26/07 Page 3 of 3