Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_09-cv-00829/USCOURTS-alsd-1_09-cv-00829-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Che Dechaune Marks
Plaintiff
Officer McCarthey
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHE DECHAUNE MARKS, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0829-WS-C 

OFFICER MCCARTHEY, :

Defendant. :

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 Local Rule 72.2 (c)(4) 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. 

On January 7, 2010, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment

of Fees (Doc. 2), for Plaintiff's failure to attach the printout of his prisoner account for the sixmonth period preceding the filing of his complaint, or to pay the $350.00 filing fee for this

action. However, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to re-file his Motion to Proceed Without

Prepayment of Fees by February 5, 2010 (Doc. 3), with the statutorily-required copy of the

institutional record attached, or to pay the $350.00. 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 January 7, 2010, has not been returned to the Court, nor

has the Plaintiff responded in any other manner to the Court's order.

Case 1:09-cv-00829-WS-C Document 4 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 3
2

Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's order and 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, 630-31,

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). 

The instructions which follow the undersigned’s signature contain important information

regarding objections to the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

DONE this 23rd day of February, 2010.

 s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00829-WS-C Document 4 Filed 02/23/10 Page 2 of 3
3

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

fourteen 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 the transcript.

Case 1:09-cv-00829-WS-C Document 4 Filed 02/23/10 Page 3 of 3