Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JOHN LEO NORMAN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:04-cv-00005-MP-AK

SHERIFF OELRICH, et al,

Defendants.

________________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 94, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report and Recommendation on Tuesday, September 26, 2006. 

The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been

afforded an opportunity to file objections. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo review of those portions to which an objection has

been made. 

The Magistrate recommends dismissing this case because Plaintiff’s last known address

is invalid and that no other information exists as to Plaintiff’s present address. A review of the

record reveals that Plaintiff has repeatedly changed addresses during the course of this case, and

has provided notice to the Court for these changes. However, it also reveals that mail from the

Court to the Plaintiff is often returned as undeliverable due to Plaintiff’s failure to inform the

Court of his present address. 

Plaintiff has filed an objection to the Magistrate’s Report, stating that he has attempted to

keep the Court informed of his current address. Plaintiff lists a time line beginning on June 12,
Page 2 of 3

Case No: 1:04-cv-00005-MP-AK

2006, when he was incarcerated at the Sarasota County Jail, then transferred to the Charlotte

County Jail on August 1, then released from custody on August 14, and ending when Plaintiff

was rearrested on an outstanding warrant and placed back in the Sarasota County Jail on August

24, 2006. Shortly after this, Plaintiff asserts that he attempted to mail notice of his address

change to the Court, but his letters were undelivered and were either lost or destroyed by the

Sarasota County Jail.

The Magistrate’s Report states that since August 18, 2006, Plaintiff has not provided any

information for his current address, and therefore he has failed to prosecute this case. In Doc.

92, filed on September 16, 2006, Plaintiff provided the Court with his present address. It appears

that the Magistrate’s Report, entered on September 26, 2006, was not sent to this updated

address, but rather to Plaintiff’s prior address. Before receiving the Magistrate’s Report,

Plaintiff filed another change of address, repeating his prior address. Doc. 96. The Court

believes that Plaintiff has provided enough information to enable the Court to communicate with

him concerning this case so that dismissal for failure to prosecute is not appropriate. The

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment has been pending for over a year, and this case

should now be resolved on its merits. Plaintiff is specifically ordered to keep the Court informed

of any address changes, and Plaintiff is warned that failure to do so will result in dismissal of this

case. 

Therefore, having considered the Report and Recommendation and the objections thereto

filed, I have declined to adopt the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Court declines to adopt the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
Page 3 of 3

Case No: 1:04-cv-00005-MP-AK

2. This matter is remanded back to the Magistrate Judge for further consideration.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of October, 2006

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge