Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00130/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00130-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Fountain
Defendant
Ronnie L. Thomas
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONNIE L. THOMAS, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

vs. * CIVIL ACTION NO.: 16-00130-KD-B

*

JOHN FOUNTAIN, *

*

Defendant. *

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Ronnie L. Thomas, an Alabama prison inmate, filed a 

complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) on March 

25, 2016. This case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. ALA. GenLR 72(a)(R) 

and is now before the Court due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 

the Court’s directives.

In an Order dated June 10, 2016, the court directed Plaintiff 

to file his complaint on the form required by this Court for § 1983 

actions filed by prisoners, and to pay the filing fee or file a motion 

to proceed without prepayment of fees by July 11, 2016. (Doc. 2).

To date, Plaintiff has not filed his complaint on the court form for 

prisoner § 1983 actions. He has also failed to pay the filing fee 

or file a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees. In addition, 

Plaintiff’s copy of the Court’s Order dated June 10, 2016 has not 

Case 1:16-cv-00130-KD-B Document 3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 4
2

been returned to the Court; thus, the Court assumes that Plaintiff 

has lost interest in this action. 

Due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order dated

June 10, 2016 (Doc. 2), and upon consideration of the alternatives 

available to the Court, the undersigned recommends that this action 

be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure as it appears that Plaintiff has lost interest 

in this action, and 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);

Betty K. Agencies, LTD v. M/V Monada, 432 F. 3d 1333, 1337-1338 (llth 

Cir. 2005); 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 

Case 1:16-cv-00130-KD-B Document 3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 4
3

before it permitted the imposition of fines), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 

863, 114 S.Ct. 181, 126 L.Ed.2d 140 (1993).

Notice of Right to File Objections

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all 

parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this 

recommendation or anything in it must, within fourteen (14) days of 

the date of service of this document, file specific written objections 

with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 

72(b); S.D. ALA. GenLR 72(c). The parties should note that under 

Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a 

magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report 

and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district 

court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions 

if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the 

consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a 

proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain 

error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1.

In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific 

finding or specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An 

objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the 

briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific. 

Case 1:16-cv-00130-KD-B Document 3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 3 of 4
4

DONE this 5th day of August, 2016.

 /S/SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00130-KD-B Document 3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 4 of 4