IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

JAMES G. HUFFMAN *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:06-CV-748-MEF

 (WO)

SOUTHERN HEALTH SERVICES, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _______________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was filed by Plaintiff on August 22, 2006. On August

30, 2006 the court entered an order of procedure which instructed Plaintiff, among other

things, to inform the court of any change in his address. (Doc. No. 5.) The order also

cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply with this specific directive would result in a

Recommendation that his case be dismissed. (Id.) 

On January 12, 2007 Plaintiff’s copy of a court order entered January 5, 2007 was

returned to the court marked “return to sender; not deliverable as addressed; unable to

forward,” because Plaintiff was no longer at the most recent address he had provided to the

court. Consequently, a show cause order was entered on January 22, 2007 directing Plaintiff

to provide the court with his present address. (Doc. No. 30.) Plaintiff was cautioned that his

failure to comply with the court's January 22 order would result in a recommendation that this

case be dismissed. (Id.) On January 26, 2007 the envelope containing Plaintiff’s copy of the

Case 2:06-cv-00748-MEF-WC Document 31 Filed 02/02/2007 Page 1 of 3
2

court’sJanuary 22, 2007 show cause order wasreturned to the court marked as undeliverable.

As it appears clear that Plaintiff is no longer residing at the most recent address he provided

to the court and that he has not provided this court with a new address, the undersigned

concludes that dismissal of the complaint at this juncture is appropriate.

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case

be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failures to prosecute this action properly and

to comply with the orders of this court. 

 It is further

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

Recommendation on or before February 14, 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

Case 2:06-cv-00748-MEF-WC Document 31 Filed 02/02/2007 Page 2 of 3
3

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 2 day of February 2006. nd

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00748-MEF-WC Document 31 Filed 02/02/2007 Page 3 of 3