Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00815/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00815-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Inez Palmer
Plaintiff
South K. White
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

INEZ PALMER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-815-MHT-GMB

)

SOUTH K. WHITE, )

)

Defendant. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On October 12, 2016, Plaintiff Inez Palmer, proceeding without counsel, filed a 

complaint in which she alleges only that “we need justice” and that her civil rights were 

violated “from 2005-2010-to now 2016.” Doc. 1. Palmer does not request any form of 

relief in her complaint. Doc. 1. On the same day Palmer filed her complaint, she also 

moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 2. The court denied this motion 

because Palmer’s application was incomplete. Doc. 4. The court ordered Palmer to either 

pay the civil filing fee or file a properly supported in forma pauperis application no later 

than November 7, 2016. Doc. 4. The court also ordered Palmer to file an amended 

complaint that complies with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by that same 

date. Doc. 4. The court warned Palmer that her failure to comply with the court’s October 

26, 2016 order would result in the court recommending dismissal of her lawsuit. Doc. 4. 

Despite this warning, November 7, 2016 came and went with no filings from Palmer.

Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court may 

sua sponte dismiss a plaintiff’s action for failure to comply with the rules of civil procedure

Case 2:16-cv-00815-MHT-GMB Document 5 Filed 12/02/16 Page 1 of 3
2

or with any order of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Owens v. Pinellas Cnty. Sheriffs 

Dep’t, 331 F. App’x 654, 656 (11th Cir. 2009). 

Because Palmer has not paid the requisite filing fee, filed a properly supported in 

forma pauperis application, or filed an amended complaint that complies with Rule 8, as 

directed by the court’s October 26, 2016 order, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the 

undersigned that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to 

comply with the orders of the court. See, e.g., Taylor v. Nelson, 356 F. App’x 318 (11th 

Cir. 2009) (affirming dismissal of complaint for failure to comply with court order); 

Crumbsy v. Friese Enters., 2015 WL 430042, at *4 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 2, 2015) (dismissing 

action, in part, because of pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with court order); Gresham 

v. AT&T Corp., 2014 WL 12513899 at *1 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 17, 2014) (“Although civil 

litigants who represent themselves (‘pro se’) benefit from various procedural protections 

not otherwise afforded to the attorney-represented litigant . . . pro se litigants are not 

entitled to a general dispensation from the rules of procedure or court-imposed deadlines.”) 

(internal quotation marks omitted).

It is further ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the 

report and recommendation no later than December 16, 2016. Any objections filed must 

specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation to 

which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be 

considered by the district court. The parties are advised that this report and 

recommendation is not a final order of the court, and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Case 2:16-cv-00815-MHT-GMB Document 5 Filed 12/02/16 Page 2 of 3
3

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in 

the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo 

determination by the district court of issues covered in the report and recommendation and 

shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report and 

recommendation accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain 

error or manifest injustice. See Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); Stein 

v. Reynolds Sec., Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982).

DONE this 2nd day of December, 2016.

 /s/ Gray M. Borden

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00815-MHT-GMB Document 5 Filed 12/02/16 Page 3 of 3