Searcy v. Owens (INMATE2)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice; Objections to R&R due by 1/2/2006. Signed by Judge Vanzetta P. McPherson on 12/16/05. (djy, )
Searcy v. Owens (INMATE2)
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ________________________________ J E S S IE SEARCY P l a i n t if f , v. R I C K Y OWENS, D e fe n d a n t. ________________________________ * * * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-861-T * *
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE P la in tiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Coosa County Jail, filed this complaint on S e p te m b e r 8, 2005. On September 13, 2005 the court directed Defendants to file an answer an d written report addressing Plaintiff's claims for relief. In compliance with the court's o r d e r, Defendants submitted an answer and written report on November 14, 2005 which c o n ta in e d relevant evidentiary materials refuting the allegations presented in the instant c o m p l a in t and indicated that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. T h e court then issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants' answer and w ritten report. (Doc. No. 10.) Plaintiff was advised that his failure to respond to
D e fe n d a n ts' answer and written report would be treated by the court "as an abandonment o f the claims set forth in the complaint and as a failure to prosecute this action." Id. ( e m p h a s is in original). Additionally, Plaintiff was "specifically cautioned that [his failure] to file a response in compliance with the directives of this order" would result in the
Page 2 of 3
d is m is s a l of this case. Id.
The time allotted Plaintiff for the filing of a response expired on
D e c e m b e r 5, 2005. As of the present date, Plaintiff has filed nothing in opposition to D e f e n d a n ts ' answer and written report as required by order filed November 15, 2005. In lig h t of the foregoing, the court concludes that this case should be dismissed. The court has reviewed the file in this case to determine whether less drastic sanctions th a n dismissal are appropriate. After such review, it is clear that dismissal of this case is the p ro p e r sanction. Plaintiff is an indigent state inmate. Thus, the imposition of monetary or o th e r punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual. Additionally, Plaintiff has e x h ib ite d a lack of respect for this court and its authority as he has failed to comply with the d ire c tiv e s of the orders entered in this case. It is, therefore, apparent that any additional e ffo rt by this court to secure Plaintiff's compliance would be unavailing. Consequently, the c o u rt concludes that Plaintiff's abandonment of his claims, his failure to comply with the o rd e r s of this court, and his failure to properly prosecute this cause of action warrant d is m is s a l of this case. For the foregoing reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge th a t this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. 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 2 January 2006. Any objections filed must specifically id e n tif y the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, co n clus ive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are 2
Page 3 of 3
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 fin 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 16 th day of December 2005.
/s / Vanzetta Penn McPherson V A N Z E T T A PENN MCPHERSON 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?