IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

QUENTARIS LEONARD, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-00061-KD-N

JASON SULLIVAN, et al :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed the instant case alleging 

violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 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. 

Because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute and to comply with the Court’s Order dated June 29, 

2015, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

On February 6, 2015, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to re-file his motion to 

proceed without prepayment of fees with the inmate account record attached or pay the $400.00 

filing fee by March 5, 2015 (Doc. 3). On April 23, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff an 

extension to re-filed his motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees until May 22, 

2015 (Doc. 4); however, the Order was returned as undeliverable (Doc. 5). The Court was able 

to locate Plaintiff through Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) website and on May 5, 

2015 the Court extended the deadline until June 4, 2015 for Plaintiff to comply with the prior

Orders (Doc. 6); however, the Order was returned as undeliverable (Doc. 7). Once again, the 

Court was able to locate Plaintiff through ADOC’s website and on June 29, 2015 extended the 

deadline to comply with the prior Orders until July 29, 2015 (Doc. 8). Plaintiff has not responded 

Case 1:15-cv-00061-KD-N Document 9 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 4
to the Court’s order nor has the document been returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff was cautioned 

that his failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in a recommendation that his action 

would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to obey the Court’s order. Due 

to this failure, the Court construes the lack of a response as an indication that Plaintiff is no 

longer interested in proceeding with his action.

As a consequence of 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 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).

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 

Case 1:15-cv-00061-KD-N Document 9 Filed 08/06/15 Page 2 of 4
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 6th day of August, 2015.

 s/KATHERINE P. NELSON 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 1:15-cv-00061-KD-N Document 9 Filed 08/06/15 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:15-cv-00061-KD-N Document 9 Filed 08/06/15 Page 4 of 4