Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00289/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00289-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
FBI (Montgomery)
Defendant
Robert T. Taylor
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT T. TAYLOR, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 07-00289-CG-B

FBI (MONTGOMERY), :

Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate who is proceeding pro se,

filed a complaint alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc.

1), together with a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees

(Doc. 2). This action 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 April 26,

2007, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. 

Plaintiff filed this Section 1983 action while incarcerated at

Fountain Correctional Facility. (Doc. 1). After a review of

Plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed without prepayment of

fees, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to re-file his

complaint on the Court’s form and to pay the $350.00 filing fee, or

in lieu thereof, complete and file a motion to proceed without

prepayment of fees on the Court’s form by May 25, 2007. (Doc. 3).

Case 1:07-cv-00289-CG-B Document 6 Filed 11/01/07 Page 1 of 5
2

Additionally, the Court directed the Clerk to send to Plaintiff the

appropriate forms for a complaint and motion to proceed without

prepayment of fees. 

On May 7, 2007, the Court’s Order directing Plaintiff to refile his complaint and motion to proceed without prepayment of fees

on the Court’s forms was returned as undeliverable (Doc. 4). On

May 9, 2007, the Clerk re-mailed the Court’s April 26, 2007 Order

(Doc. 3), along with the forms for a complaint and motion to

proceed without prepayment of fees, to Plaintiff at his last known

address, and included Plaintiff’s inmate identification number to

ensure proper delivery. On July 16, 2007, Plaintiff filed a new

complaint (Doc. 5); however, he failed to file a new motion to

proceed without prepayment of fees. To date, Plaintiff has not refiled his motion to proceed without prepayment of fees, nor has he

paid the statutory $350.00 filing fee.

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

his failure 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.

Case 1:07-cv-00289-CG-B Document 6 Filed 11/01/07 Page 2 of 5
3

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.

DONE this 1st day of November, 2007.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 1:07-cv-00289-CG-B Document 6 Filed 11/01/07 Page 3 of 5
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 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); 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

Case 1:07-cv-00289-CG-B Document 6 Filed 11/01/07 Page 4 of 5
5

the transcript.

DONE this 1st day of November, 2007.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00289-CG-B Document 6 Filed 11/01/07 Page 5 of 5