1

This case was originally filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of

Alabama. On August 15, 2006, that court directed that the complaint be transferred to this court for

review and disposition.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 EASTERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

 

JAMES TYRONE EDWARDS, *

#244 859

Plaintiff, *

v. * 3:06-CV-740-MHT

 (WO)

SGT. MOORE, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _______________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was filed by Plaintiff on February 13, 2006.1

 On

October 3, 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. 13.) 

It recently came to the court’s attention that Plaintiff is no longer residing at the

address he provided to the court when he filed this complaint. Consequently, the court

entered an order on February 29, 2008 directing Plaintiff to provide the court with his present

address on or before March 10, 2006. ( Doc. No. 27.) Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure

to comply with the court's February 29 order would result in a recommendation that this case

be dismissed. (Id.) 

Case 3:06-cv-00740-MHT-SRW Document 28 Filed 03/12/2008 Page 1 of 3
2

On March 7, 2008, Plaintiff's copy of the court's February 29 show cause order was

returned to the court marked "No longer incarcerated in the Alabama Prison System. Inmate

Edwards released," because Plaintiff was no longer at the last address he provided to the

court. Because Plaintiff is no longer residing at the address he provided to the court when

he filed this action and as he has filed nothing in response to the court's order to show cause,

the court concludes that this case should be dismissed.

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 March 24, 2008. Any objections filed must specifically

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

objecting. 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

Case 3:06-cv-00740-MHT-SRW Document 28 Filed 03/12/2008 Page 2 of 3
3

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

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

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

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

September 30, 1981.

DONE, this 12th day of March, 2008.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00740-MHT-SRW Document 28 Filed 03/12/2008 Page 3 of 3