IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARK A. REESE, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-00316-CB-N

SAM COCHRAN, 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. 9). 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 January 22, 

2016, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

On November 16, 2106, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address indicating that he 

was no longer incarcerated (Doc. 13). On January 22, 2016, this Court issued an Order 

directing Plaintiff to pay the remainder of the $350.00 filing fee (340.68) or file a new motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis by February 24, 2016 (Doc. 14). Plaintiff has not responded 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 

Case 1:15-cv-00316-CB-N Document 15 Filed 03/14/16 Page 1 of 3
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 

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.

Case 1:15-cv-00316-CB-N Document 15 Filed 03/14/16 Page 2 of 3
DONE this 14th day of March, 2016.

 s/KATHERINE P. NELSON 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:15-cv-00316-CB-N Document 15 Filed 03/14/16 Page 3 of 3