Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00155/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00155-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald Campbell
Defendant
Willie Earl Thompson
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE EARL THOMPSON, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-0155-CB-M 

 :

DONALD CAMPBELL, :

 :

Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se,

filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and a Motion

to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 2). This action

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

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4), and is now before the

Court for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the partial filing fee. 

On April 4, 2005, after review of Plaintiff's Motion to

Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees, the Court ordered

Plaintiff to pay a $3.86 partial filing fee within twenty days

(Doc. 3). Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply

with the order within the prescribed time would result in the

dismissal of his action. Plaintiff has not paid the partial

filing fee, nor has his copy of the Court’s order been

returned to the Court.

Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's

Case 1:05-cv-00155-CB-M Document 4 Filed 06/09/05 Page 1 of 4
2

order and to prosecute this action by paying the partial

filing fee, 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. 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

Case 1:05-cv-00155-CB-M Document 4 Filed 06/09/05 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Case 1:05-cv-00155-CB-M Document 4 Filed 06/09/05 Page 3 of 4
4

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 9th day of June, 2005.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:05-cv-00155-CB-M Document 4 Filed 06/09/05 Page 4 of 4