IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Terrance Reaser, *

*

 Plaintiff, *

 * CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-00475-CG-B

vs. * 

*

Mr. Long, et al., *

*

 Defendants. *

Report and Recommendation

Plaintiff Terrance Reaser, an Alabama prison inmate 

proceeding pro se, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

together with a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees 

(Docs. 1,9). This action has been referred to the undersigned 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4), 

and is now before the Court due to Plaintiff's failure to 

prosecute and failure to obey the Court's order. 

On two separate occasions, Plaintiff filed a motion to 

proceed without prepayment of fees, and upon review, the Court 

denied the motions because Plaintiff failed to include a signed 

certification by an authorized prison official and a copy of the 

institutional record of his inmate account reflecting deposits 

for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his 

complaint as required by statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(2). 

(Docs. 2, 3, 4, 8). In the Court’s order dated November 19, 

2014 (Doc. 8), Plaintiff was expressly advised that he was 

required to file a new motion to proceed without prepayment of 

Case 1:14-cv-00475-CG-B Document 10 Filed 01/09/15 Page 1 of 4
2

fees and was further advised that his new motion had to include 

the statutorily required copy of the institutional record of his 

inmate account reflecting transactions in his account for the 

six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his

complaint and the signed certificate of the authorized officer. 

Additionally, Plaintiff was advised that in lieu of filing the 

motion by December 19, 2014, he could pay the $400 filing fee by 

said date. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to include a 

copy of his institutional account, and a certification from an 

authorized prison officer would result in dismissal due to his 

repeated failure to obey the Court’s directives.

On November 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed his third motion to 

proceed without prepayment of fees. (Doc. 9). The motion was 

not accompanied with a copy of the institutional record of 

Plaintiff’s inmate account, and the certificate was blank 

although it did bear the signature of a prison official. Upon 

inquiry with the prison, the Court learned that while the 

individual who signed the document is employed by the 

institution, he is not employed in the financial department and 

does not possess information regarding Plaintiff’s inmate 

account. At this juncture, it is clear that rather than obey 

the Court’s directives, and forward the certificate to the 

finance office for completion, Plaintiff has once again sought 

to sidestep the requirement that he submit a copy of the 

Case 1:14-cv-00475-CG-B Document 10 Filed 01/09/15 Page 2 of 4
3

institutional record of his inmate account reflecting deposits 

for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his 

complaint and a completed certificate signed by an authorized 

prison official. 

Given Plaintiff’s repeated refusal to obey the Court’s 

directives, and upon consideration of other available 

alternatives, 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 failure to obey the Court's 

orders, as no other lesser sanction will suffice. Moon v. 

Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (As a general rule, 

where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to 

obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.); see also Zow 

v. Regions Fin. Corp., 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 23321 (11th Cir. 

2014)( if a party disregards an order despite being warned of 

the possible consequences, dismissal is generally not an abuse 

of discretion); Tanner v. Neal, 232 Fed. App’x. 924 (11th Cir. 

2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of 

inmate's § 1983 action for failure to file an amendment to 

complaint in compliance with court's prior order directing 

amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply); 

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 

Case 1:14-cv-00475-CG-B Document 10 Filed 01/09/15 Page 3 of 4
4

lack of prosecution).

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. The parties 

should note that under Eleventh Circuit precedent, “the failure 

to object limits the scope of [] appellate review to plain error 

review of the magistrate judge’s factual findings.” Dupree v. 

Warden, 715 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2013) (emphasis in 

original). 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 9th day of January, 2015.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00475-CG-B Document 10 Filed 01/09/15 Page 4 of 4