IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

 _____________________________

JAMES PETTY, #124 252 *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:06-CV-639-WKW

 (WO)

RAY B. FINEDOR, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _____________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on July 19, 2006. On July 20, 2006 the

court directed Defendants to file an answer and written report addressing Plaintiff's claims

for relief. In compliance with the court’s order, Defendants submitted answers and written

reports on September 11, 2006, September 12, 2006, and November 8, 2006 which contained

relevant evidentiary materials refuting the allegations presented in the instant complaint. The

court then issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ written reports.

(Doc. No. 23.) Plaintiff was advised that his failure to respond to Defendants’ written reports

would be treated by the court "as an abandonment of the claims set forth in the complaint

and as a failure to prosecute this action." Id. (emphasis in original). Additionally,

Plaintiff was "specifically cautioned that [his failure] to file a response in compliance

with the directives of this order" would result in the dismissal of this case. Id. 

The time allotted Plaintiff for the filing of a response expired on January 23, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 31 Filed 01/30/2007 Page 1 of 3
2

As of the present date, Plaintiff has filed nothing in opposition to Defendants’ written reports

as required by order filed December 12, 2006. In light of the foregoing, the court concludes

that this case should be dismissed.

 The court has reviewed the file in this case to determine whether less drastic sanctions

than dismissal are appropriate. After such review, it is clear that dismissal of this case is the

proper sanction. Plaintiff is an indigent state inmate. Thus, the imposition of monetary or

other punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual. Additionally, Plaintiff has

exhibited a lack of respect for this court and its authority as he has failed to comply with the

directives of the orders entered in this case. It is, therefore, apparent that any additional

effort by this court to secure Plaintiff’s compliance would be unavailing. Consequently, the

court concludes that Plaintiff’s abandonment of his claims, his failure to comply with the

orders of this court, and his failure to properly prosecute this cause of action warrant

dismissal of this case. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (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 (11 Cir. 1995). th

For the foregoing reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge

that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice.

 It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the

Recommendation on or before February 12, 2007. Any objections filed must specifically

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 31 Filed 01/30/2007 Page 2 of 3
3

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects.

Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The

parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore,

it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain

error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein th

v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of th

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the th

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done, this 30 day of January 2007. th

 /s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 31 Filed 01/30/2007 Page 3 of 3