IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER ALLEN PRIDMORE, )

AIS #139858, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-778-MEF

 ) [WO]

)

GWENDOLYN MOSLEY, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause is before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed by Christopher

Allen Pridmore [“Pridmore”], a state inmate, on August 30, 2006. The defendants filed a

written report in compliance with the orders of this court in which they addressed

Pridmore’s claims for relief. Specifically, the defendants submitted relevant evidentiary

materials that refuted the allegations presented in the complaint. The court thereafter

issued an order directing Pridmore to file a response to the written report. See Order of

October 23, 2006 - Court Doc. No. 12. The order advised Pridmore that his failure to

respond to the defendants’ written report 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. at 1 (emphasis in original). Additionally, the order “specifically cautioned

[the plaintiff] that [his failure] to file a response in compliance with the directives of

this order” would result in the dismissal of this civil action. Id. The time allotted

Pridmore for filing a response to this order expired on November 10, 2006. As of the

Case 2:06-cv-00778-MEF-WC Document 13 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 1 of 3
2

present date, Pridmore has filed nothing in opposition to the defendants’ written report as

required by the orders of this court. 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 a less drastic

measure than dismissal is appropriate. After such review, it is clear that dismissal of this

case is the proper course of action. Pridmore is an indigent state inmate. Thus, the

imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual.

Additionally, Pridmore has voluntarily chosen not 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 Pridmore’s compliance would be unavailing. Moreover, the response and

undisputed evidentiary materials filed by the defendants indicate that Pridmore is not

entitled to any relief in this cause of action. Consequently, the court concludes that

Pridmore’s abandonment of his claims, his failure to comply with the orders of this court

and his failure to prosecute this cause of action warrant dismissal of this case. 

 CONCLUSION

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

that this case be dismissed without prejudice. It is further 

ORDERED that on or before December 4, 2006 the parties may file objections to

the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive

Case 2:06-cv-00778-MEF-WC Document 13 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 2 of 3
3

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 advisements in the

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

the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

District Court except upon grounds of plain 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 20 day of November, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00778-MEF-WC Document 13 Filed 11/20/2006 Page 3 of 3