McDonnell v. Glover et al (INMATE1)

Filing 13

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plf to comply with the orders of this court; Objections to R&R due by 2/17/2009. Signed by Honorable Susan Russ Walker on 2/4/2009. (wcl, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION JASON J. McDONNELL, Plaintiff, v. LAMAR GLOVER, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-CV-447-WKW ) [WO] ) ) ) )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Jason J. McDonnell ["McDonnell"], a county inmate, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on May 18, 2006. In this complaint, McDonnell challenges the adequacy of security provided to him during his confinement at the Houston County Jail. The court recently ascertained that McDonnell no longer resides at the last address he provided for service. The order of procedure entered in this case specifically directed McDonnell to inform the court immediately of any change in his address. Order of May 22, 2006 - Court Document No. 4 at 4. As is clear from the foregoing, McDonnell has failed to comply with this directive and this case cannot properly proceed in his absence. The court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to comply with the orders of this court. It is further ORDERED that on or before February 17, 2009 the parties may file objections to

the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. Done, this 4th day of February, 2009. /s/ Susan Russ Walker SUSAN RUSS WALKER CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2