1

Plaintiff was also advised that in lieu of the motion to proceed without payment of fees, he could pay the

$350.00 filing fee by November 19, 2009 (Doc.2).

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOE HENRY SCOTT, III, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-00679-KD-N

WALTER MYERS, et al, :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed the instant case alleging

violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Docs. 1, 3). 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 January

22, 2010, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

Plaintiff did not file a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees when he initially filed

his complaint. On October 19, 2009, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to file a motion

to proceed without prepayment of fees on the Court's current forms by November 19, 20091 (Doc.

2). Plaintiff has filed this Court's required form for a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees

(Doc 3). 

On January 4 2010, plaintiff notified the court of a change of address (Doc. 13). Plaintiff is

no longer incarcerated. Accordingly, on January 22, 2010, the Court issued an order directing

plaintiff to either file the $350.00 filing fee or file a new motion to proceed without prepayment of

Case 1:09-cv-00679-KD-N Document 21 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 3
fees (Doc. 18). The Court also directed the Clerk to forward to Plaintiff a copy of the requisite 

form along with a copy of the Order. A review of the docket sheet reflects that the Order has not

been returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff has failed to file this Court’s form for a motion to proceed

without prepayment of fees or paid the $350.00 filing fee.

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, 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 3rd day of March, 2010.

 s/KATHERINE P. NELSON 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00679-KD-N Document 21 Filed 03/04/10 Page 2 of 3
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 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.

S/ KATHERINE P. NELSON 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00679-KD-N Document 21 Filed 03/04/10 Page 3 of 3