Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00125/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00125-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dr. Benjamin
Defendant
Grantt Culliver
Defendant
Nurse Johnson
Defendant
R. Johnson
Defendant
Charles X. Marshall
Plaintiff
Prison Health Services
Defendant
Smith
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES X. MARSHALL, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-00125-KD-B

 :

PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis, filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 5).

This case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4) for appropriate action, and

is now before the Court due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and

to comply with the Court’s Order.

Plaintiff filed this Section 1983 action on September 18,

2006, alleging various violations at Holman Correctional Facility.

(Doc. 5). Plaintiff requested and was granted permission to

proceed without prepayment of fees. (Docs. 2, 3). On January 29,

2007, the Court issued an Order directing the Clerk to serve

Defendants Prison Health Services, Warden Grantt Culliver, Nurse

Johnson, Nurse Smith, Dr. Benjamin, and Officer R. Johnson. (Doc.

7). Defendants filed their Answers and Special Reports. (Docs. 16,

17, 18, 19). Upon review of Defendants’ Answers and Special

Reports, the undersigned, on April 16, 2008, entered an Order

Case 1:06-cv-00125-KD-B Document 25 Filed 06/10/08 Page 1 of 4
2

converting the Special Reports and Answers to a Motion for Summary

Judgment. (Doc. 24). Plaintiff was notified of the conversion, and

of his right, under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, to submit any information in opposition to the motion

before May 16, 2008. Plaintiff was further directed to notify the

Court in writing, by May 16, 2008, if he wished to continue the

prosecution of this action. Plaintiff was cautioned that if he

failed to respond to the Court’s Order by that date, the Court

would consider his case abandoned, and the case would be dismissed.

(Id.) Although the Order was mailed to Plaintiff’s address of

record, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order, nor has

his copy of the Order been returned to the Court. 

In light of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s

Order dated April 16, 2008, and failure to keep the Court apprised

of his current address, the undersigned concludes that Plaintiff

has abandoned the prosecution of this action. Upon consideration

of the alternatives available to the Court, the undersigned

recommends that this action be dismissed with 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

Case 1:06-cv-00125-KD-B Document 25 Filed 06/10/08 Page 2 of 4
3

(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 the Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 10th day of June, 2008.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00125-KD-B Document 25 Filed 06/10/08 Page 3 of 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). 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, in part, 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. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing party may

submit a brief opposing the objection within ten (10) days of being

served with a copy of the statement of objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72;

SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

3. 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.

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00125-KD-B Document 25 Filed 06/10/08 Page 4 of 4