IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JAMES BROADHEAD, : 

 : 

Plaintiff, : 

 : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 10-0278-KD-M 

 : 

OFFICER BISHOP, et al., : 

 : 

Defendants. : 

 

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed 

a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was referred to 

the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 

Rule 72.2, and is before the Court for Plaintiff's failure to 

prosecute and to comply with the Court=s Order. 

On June 18, 2010, Plaintiff was ordered to complete and file 

this Court=s forms for a complaint under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 and for 

a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees by July 19, 2010 

(Doc. 3). Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply with 

the Order within the prescribed time would result in the 

dismissal of his action for failure to prosecute and to obey the 

Court=s Order. The Order was mailed to Plaintiff at W. C. Holman 

Correctional Facility, 3700 Holman Road, Atmore, Alabama 36503, 

his last known address. The Court=s Order dated June 18, 2010, 

has not been returned to the Court, nor has the Court, to date, 

Case 1:10-cv-00278-KD-M Document 4 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 4
2 

heard from Plaintiff since this Order was entered. The Court 

finds that Plaintiff has abandoned prosecution of this action. 

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 for failure to 

prosecute and to obey the Court's order, as no other lesser 

sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R. R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 

82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388-89, 8 L.Ed.2d 734, 738 (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), 

Case 1:10-cv-00278-KD-M Document 4 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 4
3 

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 AStatement 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. 

Case 1:10-cv-00278-KD-M Document 4 Filed 07/26/10 Page 3 of 4
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 26th day of July, 2010. 

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00278-KD-M Document 4 Filed 07/26/10 Page 4 of 4