IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER ALVIN NALL, :

 :

Petitioner, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 10-0048-CB-M

:

WARDEN FPC MAXWELL, :

 :

Respondent. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, a Federal prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed

a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). This action, which

has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B), Local Rule 72.2(c)(4), is before the Court for

Petitioner’s failure to prosecute and to obey the Court's Order. 

On March 3, 2010, Petitioner was ordered to complete and

file this Court’s forms for a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and

for a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees by April 2,

2010 (Doc. 3). On March 26, 2010, the Order dated March 3, 2010,

was returned as undeliverable (Doc. 4). Upon review of the

docket sheet, the Court noted a discrepancy in Petitioner’s

address. On April 13, 2010, the Clerk was directed to mail a

copy of the Court’s Order dated March 3, 2010, along with the

appropriate forms (Doc. 3), to Petitioner at the corrected

address. Also, the time for Petitioner to respond to the Order

dated March 3, 2010, was extended to May 10, 2010 (Doc. 5). The

Case 1:10-cv-00048-CB-M Document 6 Filed 05/20/10 Page 1 of 4
2

Order dated April 13, 2010, was mailed to Petitioner at FPC

Montgomery, Federal Prison Camp, Maxwell Air Force Base,

Montgomery, Alabama 36112. Petitioner was warned that his

failure to comply with the Order within the prescribed time would

result in the dismissal of his action. The Court’s Order dated

April 13, 2010 (Doc. 5), has not been returned to the Court, nor

has the Court, to date, heard from Plaintiff since this Order was

entered. The Court finds that Petitioner has abandoned

prosecution of this action. 

Due to Petitioner's failure to comply with the Court's

Order, and upon consideration of the alternatives 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, 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. 1983);

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

Case 1:10-cv-00048-CB-M Document 6 Filed 05/20/10 Page 2 of 4
3

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. 1993)(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).

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 fourteen 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); 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 fourteen 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

Case 1:10-cv-00048-CB-M Document 6 Filed 05/20/10 Page 3 of 4
4

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 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 19th day of May, 2010.

 

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00048-CB-M Document 6 Filed 05/20/10 Page 4 of 4