IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEVEN KEITH GLATFELTER, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-00122-CG-B

SGT. POPE, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Steven Keith Glatfelter filed this pro se action while 

a pretrial detainee at the Mobile County Metro Jail. (Doc. 1). 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 Glatfelter has failed to prosecute and to comply with 

the Court’s orders, it is recommended that this action be dismissed 

without prejudice. 

Glatfelter requested and was granted permission to proceed in

forma pauperis. (Doc. 5). Subsequent thereto, Glatfelter, on August 

25, 2014, filed a notice of change of address, which reflected that 

he had been released from custody. (Doc. 24). In an order dated 

September 25, 2014, the Court directed Glatfelter to provide, by

October 27, 2014, information that would assist the Court in serving 

Defendants “Dr. P. LNU, Nurse Amy LNU, and Correctional Officer 

Rutland”. (Doc. 32). Glatfelter has not responded in any manner to 

the September 25th order, nor has his copy of the order been returned 

Case 1:13-cv-00122-CG-B Document 38 Filed 04/02/15 Page 1 of 4
2

to the Court. Additionally, in an order dated January 8, 2015, 

Glatfelter was reminded that because this action was filed while he 

was incarcerated, he remains obligated to pay the remainder of the 

filing fee in the amount of $340.10. (Doc. 37). Glatfelter was 

directed to pay the remainder of the filing fee, or in lieu thereof,

to file a new motion to proceed without prepayment of fees by February 

9, 2015, because with his release, collection through the institution 

was no longer possible. Glatfelter was also cautioned that if he 

failed to file a new motion to proceed without prepayment of fees, 

or pay the remainder of the filing fee by the prescribed deadline,

this action would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to 

prosecute and to obey the Court's Order.1 (Id.). To date, Glatfelter 

has not responded in any manner to the order nor has his copy of the 

order been returned to the Court. Given his inaction, it appears that 

Glatfelter has lost interest in this litigation.

Due to Glatfelter’s failure to comply with the Court's orders 

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 

 1 The Court also directed the Clerk to forward to Plaintiff a copy 

of the requisite forms along with a copy of the Order. 

Case 1:13-cv-00122-CG-B Document 38 Filed 04/02/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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. 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).

Notice of Right to File Objections

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all 

parties in the manner provided by law. 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72(b); S.D. Ala. L.R. 72.4. The parties should note that under 

Eleventh Circuit precedent, “the failure to object limits the scope 

of [] appellate review to plain error review of the magistrate judge’s 

factual findings.” Dupree v. Warden, Attorney General, State of 

Case 1:13-cv-00122-CG-B Document 38 Filed 04/02/15 Page 3 of 4
4

Alabama, 715 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2011). In order to be 

specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or 

recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the 

objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report 

and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An 

objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the 

briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific.

DONE this 2nd day of April, 2015.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00122-CG-B Document 38 Filed 04/02/15 Page 4 of 4