Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00505/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00505-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Casino Magic
Defendant
Charlotte Maldonado
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLOTTE MALDONADO, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-0505-BH-M

CASINO MAGIC, : 

 

Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, through retained counsel, 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

prosecute and to obey the Court’s Order. 

Upon review of Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Without

Prepayment of Fees, the Court found that Plaintiff’s

information does not convey a complete picture of her

financial situation and has not provided the Court with the

necessary financial information to grant her in forma pauperis

status. On September 30, 2005, the Court denied Plaintiff’s

Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees, and Plaintiff

was granted leave to file another Motion to Proceed Without

Prepayment of Fees on or before October 28, 2005, to correct

Case 1:05-cv-00505-BH-M Document 4 Filed 11/01/05 Page 1 of 4
2

the noted deficiency (Doc. 3). Plaintiff was warned that her

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. To date, Plaintiff has

not filed another Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees

as given the opportunity to do, has not paid the filing fee

nor has she otherwise responded to the Court's Order.

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

and to prosecute this action, the undersigned concludes that

Plaintiff has abandoned the prosecution of her action. Upon

consideration of the alternatives 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

Case 1:05-cv-00505-BH-M Document 4 Filed 11/01/05 Page 2 of 4
3

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).

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

Case 1:05-cv-00505-BH-M Document 4 Filed 11/01/05 Page 3 of 4
4

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 1

st day of November, 2005.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00505-BH-M Document 4 Filed 11/01/05 Page 4 of 4