Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00301/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00301-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Beth Harper
Plaintiff
Postmaster General
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BETH HARPER, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-0301-CB-C 

POSTMASTER GENERAL, :

Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action 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. It is recommended that this action be dismissed

without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. 

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint without tendering the $350.00 filing fee or

filing a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees. Furthermore, Plaintiff's complaint did

not contain her original signature, which is due to her filing a copy of her complaint. Pursuant to

directions of the Court, the Clerk mailed to Plaintiff a form for a motion to proceed without

prepayment of fees, a copy of The Pro Se Litigant Guide, and returned the complaint to Plaintiff

so she may re-file the complaint with her original signature. Plaintiff was ordered by June 28,

2006, to either pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed without prepayment fees, to re-file

her complaint, including in her complaint the address for the defendant, and to attach a copy of

any documentation received from the reviewing agency, particularly the document denying her

claim. Plaintiff was warned that her failure to comply with the order within the prescribed time

Case 1:06-cv-00301-CB-C Document 3 Filed 09/07/06 Page 1 of 3
2

would result in the dismissal of her action. To date, Plaintiff has failed to obey or otherwise

respond to the Court's order.

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, 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. 1983); 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. 1993)(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 this Report

and Recommendation.

DONE this 6th day of September, 2006.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00301-CB-C Document 3 Filed 09/07/06 Page 2 of 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

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

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 1:06-cv-00301-CB-C Document 3 Filed 09/07/06 Page 3 of 3