IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL WRIGHT, AIS #232804, :

Petitioner, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-0395-BH-C 

WILLIE THOMAS, :

Respondent. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. §

2254 (Doc. 1) and his Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 2) on outdated forms.

This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2,

and is now before the Court for Petitioner's failure to prosecute and to obey the Court's Order (Doc.

3).

The Court's Order dated July 11, 2005 (Doc. 3), ordered Petitioner by August 11, 2005, to

file his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and to file his motion to proceed without prepayment of fees on

this Court's new forms. Petitioner was warned that his failure to comply with the Court's Order within

the prescribed time would result in the dismissal of his action (Doc. 3). The Court’s Order has not

been returned to the Court nor has the Court, to date, heard from Petitioner since this Order was

entered. 

Due to Petitioner's failure to comply with the Court's Order of August 11, 2005 (Doc. 3), and

Case 1:05-cv-00395-BH-C Document 4 Filed 08/24/05 Page 1 of 3
2

upon consideration of the alternatives 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. 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).

The attached sheet contains important information regarding objections to the Report and

Recommendation.

DONE this 22nd day of August, 2005.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00395-BH-C Document 4 Filed 08/24/05 Page 2 of 3
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 ten

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 ten 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.

DONE this day of , 20 .

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00395-BH-C Document 4 Filed 08/24/05 Page 3 of 3