Service of the complaint, as amended, was not effected on Defendant Weldon because she was 1

not at the address provided by Plaintiff. At the time Defendants McCoy, Buggs, and Reaves filed their

special reports, Plaintiff had not provided a service address for Defendant Weldon as directed by court

order. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

 _____________________________

JEREMIAH W. GREEN *

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 2:06-CV-667-WKW

 (WO)

AJA ROBERTS, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _____________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff filed this complaint on July 26, 2006. On February 28, 2007 the court

directed Defendants Reaves, McCoy, Buggs, and Weldon to file an answer and written report

addressing Plaintiff's claims for relief. In compliance with the court’s order, Defendants 1

McCoy, Buggs, and Reaves submitted written reports on April 9, 2007 and May 7, 2007

(Doc. Nos. 56, 57) which contained relevant evidentiary materials refuting the allegations

presented in the instant complaint, as amended. The court then issued an order directing

Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants McCoy, Buggs, and Reaves’ written reports. (Doc.

No. 58.) Plaintiff was advised that his failure to respond to Defendants McCoy, Buggs, and

Reaves 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

Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 62 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 1 of 4
2

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 the special reports filed by

Defendants McCoy, Buggs, and Reaves expired on May 29, 2007. As of the present date,

Plaintiff has filed nothing in opposition to Defendants McCoy, Buggs, and Reaves written

reports as required by order filed May 8, 2007. In light of the foregoing, the court concludes

that Plaintiff’s complaint, as amended, against Defendants McCoy, Buggs, and Reaves

should be dismissed.

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

sanctions than dismissal against the Defendants noted above is appropriate. After such

review, it is clear that dismissal of the complaint, as amended, against Defendants McCoy,

Buggs, and Reaves is the proper sanction. 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 against Defendants McCoy, Buggs, and Reaves, and his failure

to comply with the orders of this court, and his failure to properly prosecute this cause of

action against Defendants McCoy, Buggs, and Reaves warrants dismissal of this case against

these Defendants. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962) (interpreting Rule

Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 62 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 2 of 4
3

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 Plaintiff’s complaint, as amended, against Defendants McCoy, Buggs, and Reaves be

DISMISSED without prejudice.

 It is further

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

Recommendation on or before July 31, 2007. Any objections filed must specifically 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

Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 62 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 3 of 4
4

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

September 30, 1981.

Done, this 18th day of July 2007.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 62 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 4 of 4