Cooper v. Reed (INMATE 2)

Filing 20

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action properly and to comply with the orders of this court; Objections to R&R due by 5/18/2009. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 5/5/2009. (cc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION _______________________________ DAVION COOPER, #59161 P l a in tif f , v. C O M M A N D E R REED * * * * 1:07-CV-543-WKW (WO)

D e f e n d a n t. * _______________________________ R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE T h is 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was filed by Plaintiff on June 19, 2007. On June 21, 2 0 0 7 the court entered an order of procedure which instructed Plaintiff, among other things, to inform the court of any change in his address. (Doc. No. 4.) The order also cautioned

P la in tif f that failure to comply with this specific directive would result in a Recommendation th a t his case be dismissed. (Id.) It recently came to the court's attention that Plaintiff is no longer residing at the ad d ress he provided to the court when he filed this complaint. Consequently, the court e n ter e d a show cause order on April 24, 2009 directing Plaintiff to provide the court with his p re s e n t address on or before May 6, 2009. (Doc. No. 19.) Plaintiff was cautioned that his f a ilu re to comply with the court's April 24 order would result in a recommendation that this

c a s e be dismissed. (Id.) On May 4, 2009 the envelope containing Plaintiff's copy of the c o u rt's April 24, 2009 show cause order was returned to the court marked as undeliverable. A s it appears clear that Plaintiff is no longer residing at the address he provided to the court u p o n the filing of this complaint and that he has not provided this court with his current a d d re ss , the undersigned concludes that dismissal of the complaint at this juncture is a p p ro p r ia te . A c c o r d in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case b e DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action properly and to comply with the orders of this court. It is further O R D E R E D that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the R e c o m m e n d a tio n on or before May 18, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically identify th e findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, co n clus ive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are a d v is e d that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not a p p e a la b le . F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the M a g is tra te Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District C o u rt of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

2

f in d in g s in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain e r r o r or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein v . Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of P r ic h a r d , 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the d e c is io n s of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on S e p te m b e r 30, 1981. D o n e , this 5 th day of May 2009.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3