IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

COREY EUGENE BENTON, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 14-00544-WS-B

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Corey Eugene Benton, an Alabama prison inmate 

proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a motion requesting 

the issuance of a federal restraining order, and a request to proceed 

in forma pauperis1. (Docs. 1, 2). Upon review of Benton’s documents, 

the Court issued an order dated November 24, 2014, which appraised 

Benton that it is necessary for him to file a complaint in order to 

commence a civil action in federal court. (Doc. 3). Benton was 

directed to file his complaint on the Court’s form for inmate actions 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 no later December 22, 2014. Benton was also 

provided with a copy of the complaint form and was cautioned that 

failure to comply with the Court’s order within the prescribed time 

or to advise the Court of a change in address would result in

the dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to

 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. 

Case 1:14-cv-00544-WS-B Document 4 Filed 03/27/15 Page 1 of 3
prosecute and to obey the Court's Order. To date, Benton has not 

responded in any manner to the Court's Order (Doc. 3), nor has his 

copy of the Order and form been returned to the Court. 

Due to Benton’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 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. 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), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 

863, 114 S.Ct. 181, 126 L.Ed.2d 140 (1993).

Case 1:14-cv-00544-WS-B Document 4 Filed 03/27/15 Page 2 of 3
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. 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 26th day of March, 2015.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00544-WS-B Document 4 Filed 03/27/15 Page 3 of 3