IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALVIN THOMAS, :

: 

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 14-00534-CG-M 

: 

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., :

:

 Defendants. : 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, 

filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a Motion for Leave 

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docs. 1 2). This action was 

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

and Local Rule 72.2, and is before the Court for Plaintiff's 

failure to prosecute and to comply with the Court’s Order. 

On November 25, 2014, Plaintiff was ordered to file this 

Court’s forms for a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for a

motion to proceed without prepayment of fees not later than

December 29, 2014 (Doc. 3). Plaintiff was warned that his 

failure to comply with the Order within the prescribed time 

would result in the dismissal of his action for failure to 

prosecute and to obey the Court’s Order (Doc. 3). The Order was 

mailed to Plaintiff at Holman Correctional Facility, Holman Unit 

3700, Atmore, Alabama, his last known address. To date, 

Case 1:14-cv-00534-CG-M Document 4 Filed 03/04/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Order been returned as undeliverable. The Court finds that 

Plaintiff has abandoned prosecution of this action.

Due to Plaintiff'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 for failure to 

prosecute and to obey the Court's Order, as no other lesser 

sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R. R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 

82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388-89, 8 L.Ed.2d 734, 738 (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 

Case 1:14-cv-00534-CG-M Document 4 Filed 03/04/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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. 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 4th day of March, 2015.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00534-CG-M Document 4 Filed 03/04/15 Page 3 of 3