Brooks v. Meredith et al (INMATE 2)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to comply with the orders of the court and to prosecute this action. Objections to R&R due by 12/28/2008. Signed by Honorable Susan Russ Walker on 12/15/2008. (cb, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION ____________________________ ANTHONY T. BROOKS, Plaintiff, v. FRANK MEREDITH, DETECTIVE, et al., Defendants. ____________________________ * * * * * 1:08-CV-427-TMH (WO)
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on June 4, 2008. When he filed this complaint, Plaintiff was an inmate incarcerated at the Houston County Jail located in Dothan, Alabama. On June 18, 2008 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 cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the court's requirement that it be notified of any change in his address would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. (Id.) The court recently ascertained that Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at the Houston County Jail. Consequently, an order was entered on November 10, 2008 directing Plaintiff to provide the court with his present address on or before November 21, 2008. (Doc. No. 17.) Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the court's November 10 order would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. (Id.) The envelope containing Plaintiff's copy of this order was returned to the court on November 18, 2008 marked as
undeliverable. It is clear that Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at the Houston County Jail and that he has not provided this court with his current address. The undersigned, 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 Plaintiff's failures to comply with the orders of the court and to prosecute this action. It is further ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said Recommendation on or before December 28, 2008. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. 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 recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report 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 15th day of December, 2008.
/s/ Susan Russ Walker SUSAN RUSS WALKER CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?