Johnson v. Hughes et al (INMATE 2)
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action and comply with the orders of this court. Objections to R&R due by 12/22/2009. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 12/10/2009. (br, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA S O U T H E R N DIVISION __________________________________ T O M M Y JAMES JOHNSON, JR. #86379 P l a in tif f , v. S H E R IF F ANDY R. HUGHES, et al., * * * * 1:09-CV-829-TMH (WO)
D e f e n d a n ts . * __________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE O n September 4, 2009 the court entered an order granting Plaintiff fourteen days to f ile an amendment to his complaint. (See Doc. No. 3.) On November 4, 2009 the court g ra n te d Plaintiff an extension to and including November 18, 2009 to comply with the c o u rt's September 4, 2009 order. (See Doc. No. 9.) Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the September 4 order, as extended by the November 4 order, would result in a Recommendation that his complaint be dismissed. (Doc. No. 3.) The requisite time has p asse d and Plaintiff has not complied with the orders of the court. Consequently, the court c o n c lu d e s that dismissal of this case is appropriate for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this a c tio n and comply with the orders of the court. 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 and comply w ith 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 said R e c o m m e n d a tio n on or before December 22, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically id e n tif y the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. F r iv o lo u s , conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The p a rtie s are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. 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 f in d in g s in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain e rr 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 10 th day of December 2009.
/s /T e r r y F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER U N IT E D 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?