1

On January 11, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of

Address reflecting that he was being housed at Ventress

Correctional Facility. (Doc. 4). However, Plaintiff’s Complaint

and Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees, filed on

December 1, 2009 (Docs. 1, 2), reflect that he was already

incarcerated at Ventress when he initiated the instant action.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SEAN NETTLES, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-00778-KD-B

SAM COCHRAN, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is an action by a former Alabama inmate alleging

violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case was referred to the

undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4) for appropriate action. Because

Plaintiff has failed to prosecute and to comply with the Court’s

Order dated February 9, 2010 (Doc. 5), it is recommended that this

action be dismissed without prejudice. 

Plaintiff filed this Section 1983 action on December 1, 2009,

along with a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees, while

incarcerated at Ventress Correctional Facility.1

 (Docs. 1, 2). 

Subsequent thereto, the Court received notice from Ventress that

Plaintiff has been released and that the only address of record for

Case 1:09-cv-00778-KD-B Document 6 Filed 03/25/10 Page 1 of 4
2

him is his mother’s address. In an Order dated February 9, 2010

(Doc. 5), the Court observed that because Plaintiff initiated this

action while he was a prisoner, he remained obligated to pay the

$350.00 filing fee in this action. Gay v. Texas Dep’t of Corr.

State Jail Div., 117 F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. §

1915(b)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiff was directed to pay the filing

fee by March 9, 2010, or in lieu thereof, to submit a new motion to

proceed without prepayment of fees so the Court could determine a

payment schedule for the payment of the $350.00 filing fee. (Doc.

5). The Clerk was directed to forward the Order and a form for a

motion to proceed without prepayment of fees to Plaintiff in care

of his mother at his mother’s address. Plaintiff was cautioned that

his failure to comply with the Court’s Order within the prescribed

time would result in the dismissal of this action for failure to

prosecute and to obey the Court’s Order. Plaintiff’s copy of the

Court’s February 9, 2010 Order has not been returned to the Court,

nor has Plaintiff contacted the Court since the Order was entered.

Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order

dated February 9, 2010 (Doc. 5), the undersigned concludes that

Plaintiff has abandoned the prosecution of this action. Upon

consideration of the alternatives that are available to the Court,

it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as

no other lesser sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370

Case 1:09-cv-00778-KD-B Document 6 Filed 03/25/10 Page 2 of 4
3

U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (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. Int’l Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454,

1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864

F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533,

1535 (11th Cir. 1985); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th

Cir. 1983). Accord Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 111 S.Ct.

2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (ruling that federal courts' inherent

power to manage their own proceedings authorized the imposition of

attorney's fees and related expenses as a sanction); Malautea v.

Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545-46 (11th Cir.) (finding that

the court’s inherent power to manage actions before it permitted

the imposition of fines), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 863, 114 S.Ct.

181, 126 L.Ed.2d 140 (1993).

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to this Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 24th day of March, 2010.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00778-KD-B Document 6 Filed 03/25/10 Page 3 of 4
2

The Court’s Local rules are being amended to reflect the new

computations of time as set out in the amendments to the Federal Rules

of Practice and Procedure, effective December 1, 2009.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS AND 

RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION, AND

FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

l. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation, or

anything in it, must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service

of this document, file specific written objections with the Clerk of this

Court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the district

judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an attack, on

appeal, of the factual findings of the Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988);

Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc).

The procedure for challenging the findings and recommendations of the

Magistrate Judge is set out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1,

1997), which provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a magistrate

judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a matter excepted by

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a “Statement of Objection

to Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation” within ten days2 after

being served with a copy of the recommendation, unless a

different time is established by order. The statement of

objection shall specify those portions of the recommendation

to which objection is made and the basis for the objection.

The objecting party shall submit to the district judge, at the

time of filing the objection, a brief setting forth the

party’s arguments that the magistrate judge’s recommendation

should be reviewed de novo and a different disposition made.

It is insufficient to submit only a copy of the original brief

submitted to the magistrate judge, although a copy of the

original brief may be submitted or referred to and

incorporated into the brief in support of the objection.

Failure to submit a brief in support of the objection may be

deemed an abandonment of the objection. 

A magistrate judge's recommendation cannot be appealed to a Court

of Appeals; only the district judge's order or judgment can be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable Where Proceedings Tape Recorded). Pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b), the Magistrate Judge finds

that the tapes and original records in this case are adequate for

purposes of review. Any party planning to object to this recommendation,

but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial

determination that transcription is necessary is required before the

United States will pay the cost of the transcript.

Case 1:09-cv-00778-KD-B Document 6 Filed 03/25/10 Page 4 of 4