Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00269/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00269-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shon Paul Montgomery
Plaintiff
Kenneth Tyus
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHON PAUL MONTGOMERY, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 16-0269-KD-C

SGT. KENNETH TYUS, :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action was filed by an Alabama state inmate and has been referred to the 

undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and General L.R. 72(b) for appropriate 

action. It is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s 

failure to prosecute and to comply with the Court's order. 

The Court reviewed Plaintiff's complaint and Affidavit in Support of Request to 

Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docs. 1, 2) and found that they were not filed on this 

Court's forms. On August 31, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff by September 30, 2016, 

to complete and file this Court’s forms for a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for a 

motion to proceed without prepayment of fees. Plaintiff was warned that his failure to 

timely comply with the order within the prescribed time would result in the dismissal 

of his action. To date, the Court’s order dated August 31, 2016 (Doc. 3), has not been 

returned to the Court, nor has Plaintiff responded in any other manner to the Court’s 

order.

Due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order and to prosecute this 

Case 1:16-cv-00269-KD-C Document 4 Filed 11/10/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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, 630-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1389 (1962) (“The authority of a court to 

dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent 

power’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to 

manage their own affairs so as to achieved the orderly and expeditious disposition of 

cases.”); Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 483 (11th Cir. 2006) (recognizing a district court’s 

inherent power to enforce orders and provide for the efficient disposition of litigation); 

Wilson v. Sargent, 313 F.3d 1315, 1331-32 & n.7 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that a prisoner’s 

failure to pay the partial filing fee under § 1915 is a basis for dismissal); see generally 

Betty K Agencies, Ltd. V. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337-38 (11th Cir. 2005) (discussing 

dismissals pursuant to the court’s inherent power and dismissals based on Rule 41(b) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and concluding that only a dismissal with prejudice

requires findings of contumacious conduct and that lesser sanctions will not suffice). 

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)(1) & (2). 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 

Case 1:16-cv-00269-KD-C Document 4 Filed 11/10/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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 recommendation to which 

objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and 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.

DONE this 10th day of November, 2016.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00269-KD-C Document 4 Filed 11/10/16 Page 3 of 3