Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00669/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00669-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jennifer D. Bogner
Plaintiff
Boomtown Casino
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JENNIFER D. BOGNER, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 07-0669-KD-M 

 :

BOOMTOWN CASINO, :

 :

Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff filed an employment discrimination 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 on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 

Upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed

Without Prepayment of Fees, the Court found that Plaintiff did

not provide sufficient financial information to grant her in

forma pauperis status and Plaintiff’s Motion was denied. 

Plaintiff was granted leave to re-file her Motion to Proceed

Without Prepayment of Fees by April 25, 2008 (Doc. 3). The

Court’s Order was mailed to Plaintiff at her last known address,

6427 Airport Blvd., Apt. E-34, Mobile, Alabama 36608, and was

returned to the Court with the notation “Addressee Unknown” (Doc.

4). Plaintiff has not advised the Court of her new address and

there is not a current address for her. The Court finds that

Plaintiff has abandoned prosecution of this action.

Due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute, and upon

Case 1:07-cv-00669-KD-M Document 5 Filed 04/23/08 Page 1 of 3
2

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). 

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

Case 1:07-cv-00669-KD-M Document 5 Filed 04/23/08 Page 2 of 3
3

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 the transcript.

DONE this 23rd day of April, 2008.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00669-KD-M Document 5 Filed 04/23/08 Page 3 of 3