IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD HOLLINGSWORTH, #276260, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

vs. * CIVIL ACTION NO.: 13-00480-WS-B

*

KIM T. THOMAS, et al., *

*

Defendants. *

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action, which was filed by Richard Hollingsworth, an Alabama 

state inmate, has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a)(2)(R) for appropriate 

action. Upon review, it is recommended that this action be dismissed 

due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and comply with the Court’s 

order. 

Plaintiff Hollingsworth filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights 

under the Eighth Amendment by their use of excessive force, failure 

to intervene, and unconstitutional living conditions. (Doc. 1). In 

their Answer and Special Report, Defendants Kim T. Thomas and Gary 

Hetzel argued that Plaintiff does not have standing to bring his claim,

that Defendants cannot be held liable under the concept of respondeat 

superior, and that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and 

Case 1:13-cv-00480-WS-B Document 30 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 4
2

immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.1 (Docs. 27, 28). Defendants’ 

Answer and Special Report was converted into a motion for summary 

judgment on June 3, 2016. (Doc. 29). In the order converting the Answer 

and Special Report, Plaintiff was ordered to inform the Court in 

writing by July 5, 2016, if he desired to continue with this litigation 

and, he was cautioned that if he did not respond, the Court would 

consider him to have abandoned this action and would treat the motion 

for summary judgment as unopposed. (Doc. 29 at 4). Plaintiff was also 

provided an opportunity to respond to the motion for summary judgment 

by the July 5th deadline. (Id.)

To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order, nor 

has his copy of the Order been returned to the Court. It thus appears 

that he has lost interest in this litigation2. In light of Plaintiff’s 

failure to respond and to prosecute this action, his apparent loss 

of interest in this case, and upon consideration of the alternatives 

that are available to the Court, it is recommended that this action 

be dismissed 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) to not restrict the court’s inherent 

 

1 Plaintiff’s claims Defendants Brandon Carroll and Robert Byrd were 

dismissed prior to service for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief could be granted. (Docs. 5, 24)

2 Plaintiff’s last contact with the Court was in June 2014. (Doc. 14)

Case 1:13-cv-00480-WS-B Document 30 Filed 08/08/16 Page 2 of 4
3

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 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 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. § 

Case 1:13-cv-00480-WS-B Document 30 Filed 08/08/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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 done by the Magistrate Judge is not specific. 

DONE this 8th day of August, 2016

 /S/SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00480-WS-B Document 30 Filed 08/08/16 Page 4 of 4