IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DENNIS BROWN, III, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00334-KD-B

CYNTHIA STEWART, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed 

a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1), together with a Motion 

to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 2). This action was 

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

S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a)(2)(R), and is now before the Court due to 

Plaintiff’s failure to pay the partial filing fee. 

On July 2, 2015, after review of Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed 

Without Prepayment of Fees, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay a $16.70

partial filing fee by August 3, 2015. (Doc. 3). Plaintiff was 

cautioned that his failure to comply with the order within the 

prescribed time would result in the dismissal of his action. More 

than three months have passed since the order was issued, and Plaintiff 

has not paid the partial filing fee, nor has he notified the Court 

of any steps that he has taken to comply with the Court’s order. In 

addition, Plaintiff’s copy of the Court’s order directing him to pay 

Case 1:15-cv-00334-KD-B Document 8 Filed 12/01/15 Page 1 of 4
the partial filing fee has not been returned to the Court.

Due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order and 

to prosecute this action by paying the partial filing fee, the Court 

recommends that, through its inherent powers, this action be dismissed 

without prejudice. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31, 82 S.Ct. 

1386, 1389 (1962) (“The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte

for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an “inherent 

power” governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily 

vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the 

orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”); Zocaras v. Castro,

465 F.3d 479, 483 (11th Cir. 2006) (recognizing a district court’s 

inherent power to enforce orders and provide for the efficient 

disposition of litigation); Wilson v. Sargent, 313 F.3d 1315, 1331-32 

& n.7 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that a prisoner’s failure to pay the 

partial filing fee under §1915 is a basis for dismissal); see generally 

Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337-38 (11th 

Cir. 2005) (discussing dismissals pursuant to the court’s inherent 

power and dismissals based on Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, and concluding that only a dismissal with prejudice

requires findings of contumacious conduct and that lesser sanctions 

will not suffice). To the extent Plaintiff disputes the Court’s 

finding of failure to pay the partial filing fee and desires to proceed 

with the litigation of his action, he shall set forth in an objection 

to the report and recommendation the reasons for his failure to pay. 

Case 1:15-cv-00334-KD-B Document 8 Filed 12/01/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Wilson, 414 F.3d at 1320 (citing to Hatchet v. Nettles, 201 F.3d 651, 

654 (5th Cir. 2000) (finding that an objection to a recommendation 

is an acceptable means to ascertain the steps taken by a prisoner 

to comply with the order to pay a partial filing fee)). 

The instructions which follow the undersigned’s signature 

contain important information regarding objections to the report and 

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

DONE this 1st day of December, 2015.

 

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00334-KD-B Document 8 Filed 12/01/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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. GenLR 72(c). The parties should note that under 

Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a 

magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report 

and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district 

court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions 

if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the 

consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a 

proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain 

error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1.

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. 

Case 1:15-cv-00334-KD-B Document 8 Filed 12/01/15 Page 4 of 4