IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SCOTT B. MORRIS, SR., *

*

Petitioner, *

*

vs. * CIVIL ACTION NO.: 15-00358-KD-B

*

HUEY HOSS MACK, *

*

Respondent. *

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Scott B. Morris filed a petition seeking habeas relief 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The case was referred to the undersigned 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. Ala. GenLR 

72(a)(2)(R) for appropriate action. Because Morris has failed to 

prosecute and to comply with the Court’s orders dated July 23, 2015 

(Doc.3) and October 26, 2016, it is recommended that this action be 

dismissed without prejudice. 

A review of Morris’ petition (Doc. 1) reflected that it was not filed 

on the form required by this Court. Accordingly, on July 23, 2015, the 

Court issued an order directing Morris to refile his petition on this 

Court’s current form for §2254 habeas petitions. (Doc. 3). He was cautioned 

that if he failed to timely refile on the Court’s form as directed, this 

action would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and 

to obey the Court’s Order. The Court also directed the Clerk to forward 

to Morris a copy of the requisite habeas form along with a copy of the 

Case 1:15-cv-00358-KD-B Document 6 Filed 02/22/16 Page 1 of 4
2

order.

The order was returned to the Court as undeliverable on August 5, 

2015 and included the following notation on the envelope: “Return to Sender, 

Not at this Address”. (Doc. 4). The Court contacted the jail, and obtained 

a forwarding address for Morris. The Court then issued an order directing 

the Clerk to resend the court’s order dated July 23, 2015 (Doc. 3), along 

with the § 2254 habeas form, to Morris at the forwarding address provided 

by the jail. (Doc. 5). The Court extended the time for complying with the 

July 23, 2015 order to November 9, 2015. Although the October 26, 2015 

(Doc. 5) mail has not been returned to the Court, Morris has failed to 

comply with the Court’s orders or seek an extension of time in which to 

do so.

Due to Morris’ failure to comply with the Court’s orders (Docs. 

3, 5), and 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 it 

appears that Morris has lost interest in this litigation, and that 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); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 

Case 1:15-cv-00358-KD-B Document 6 Filed 02/22/16 Page 2 of 4
3

Ballard v. Volunteers of America, 493 U.S. 1084, 110 S.Ct. 1145, 107 

L.Ed.2d 1049 (1990); 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).

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. GenLR 72(c). The parties should note that under Eleventh 

Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge’s 

findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation 

in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the 

right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on 

unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed 

Case 1:15-cv-00358-KD-B Document 6 Filed 02/22/16 Page 3 of 4
4

of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for 

failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the 

court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests 

of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. 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 22nd day of February, 2016.

 /S/SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00358-KD-B Document 6 Filed 02/22/16 Page 4 of 4