Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_10-cv-00255/USCOURTS-alsd-1_10-cv-00255-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Meron Detron Harmon
Plaintiff
Lamonica Lee
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MERON DETRON HARMON, : 

 

Plaintiff, : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 10-00255-WS-N 

LAMONICA LEE, : 

Defendant. : 

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed the instant case alleging 

violations under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 (Docs. 1, 3). This case was referred to the undersigned 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4) for appropriate 

action. Because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute and to comply with the Court=s Order dated 

July 9, 2010, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

Plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of fees (Doc. 1) was not filed on the 

Court=s required forms. Accordingly, on May 21, 2010, this Court issued an Order directing 

Plaintiff to file his a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees on the Court's current form 

by June 21, 20101

 (Doc. 4). On May 27, 2010, Plaintiff file a statement if his inmate account 

(Doc. 5). On June 2, 2010, the court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to file a motion to 

proceed without prepayment of fees along with the prison inmate account printout. Plaintiff 

failed to file his motion. On July 9, 2010, the court issued another Order giving Plaintiff one 

more opportunity to file a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees by August 9, 2010 

 1

Plaintiff was also advised that in lieu of the motion to proceed without payment of fees, he could pay the 

$350.00 filing fee by June 21, 2010 (Doc.4).

Case 1:10-cv-00255-WS-N Document 8 Filed 08/13/10 Page 1 of 4
(Doc. 7). Plaintiff was advised that if he failed to comply with this order, a recommendation of 

dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to obey the Court's order 

would be entered. The Court also directed the Clerk to forward to Plaintiff a copy of the 

requisite form along with a copy of the Order. A review of the docket sheet reflects that an 

amended motion to proceed without prepaymnet of fees has not been filed nor has the order been 

returned as undeliverable. 

Due to Plaintiff'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); 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 Recommendation. 

Case 1:10-cv-00255-WS-N Document 8 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 4
DONE this 13th day of August, 2010. 

 

 s/KATHERINE P. NELSON 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00255-WS-N Document 8 Filed 08/13/10 Page 3 of 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 

fourteen 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); 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 AStatement of Objection to Magistrate Judge=s Recommendation@ within 

fourteen 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. 

S/ KATHERINE P. NELSON 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00255-WS-N Document 8 Filed 08/13/10 Page 4 of 4