1

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant intentionally provided him

with an unstylish haircut that caused Plaintiff scalp soreness

and public ridicule.

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRUCE L. WILLIAMS, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-00700-CG-B

DOTCH’S BARBER SHOP & SALON, :

Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a handwritten complaint

alleging that Defendant caused him personal injury (Doc. 1).1

Plaintiff also filed a handwritten motion to proceed in forma

pauperis (Doc. 2). This action was referred to the undersigned

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4)

for appropriate action, and is now before the Court due to

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and to comply with the Court’s

Order. 

Plaintiff's handwritten complaint (Doc. 1) failed to state

the basis on which Plaintiff sought to invoke this Court’s

subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint also lacked a plain

statement of Plaintiff’s claims sufficient to show that he is

entitled to relief, and to give Defendant notice of the claims

Case 1:05-cv-00700-CG-B Document 4 Filed 04/11/06 Page 1 of 5
2

against it. Thus, on March 2, 2006, Plaintiff was ordered to

file an amended complaint by March 20, 2006, clearly setting

forth the basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, and

providing a short and plain statement of his claims and the

relief sought. 

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was also

found to be deficient, in that it did not contain enough

information for the Court to determine Plaintiff’s ability to pay

the Court’s filing fee. Plaintiff was granted leave to file a

new motion to proceed without prepayment of fees (Doc. 3). In

addition, Plaintiff was cautioned his failure to provide the

additional information required by the Court to make a

determination as to his ability to pay by March 20, 2006, would

result in the denial of his motion to proceed without prepayment

of costs, and require him to pay the $250.00 filing fee. 

Plaintiff has not responded in any manner to the Court's Order

(Doc. 3), nor has Plaintiff's copy of the Order been returned to

the Court. 

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

and to prosecute this action, and 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 U.S. 626, 630,

Case 1:05-cv-00700-CG-B Document 4 Filed 04/11/06 Page 2 of 5
3

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.

International 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 10th day of April 2006.

 

 

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00700-CG-B Document 4 Filed 04/11/06 Page 3 of 5
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of

this document, file specific written objections with the clerk of

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). 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,

in part, 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 days 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. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing

party may submit a brief opposing the objection within ten (10)

Case 1:05-cv-00700-CG-B Document 4 Filed 04/11/06 Page 4 of 5
days of being served with a copy of the statement of objection. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

3. 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 action 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.

DONE this the 10th day of April, 2006.

/s/ Sonja F. Bivins 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00700-CG-B Document 4 Filed 04/11/06 Page 5 of 5