Harris v. Mosley et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 30

RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action and to comply with the orders of this court. Objections to R&R due by 9/23/2008. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 9/10/08. (sl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION _______________________________ VICTOR LAMONT HARRIS, #141 938 Plaintiff, v. G W E N D O L Y N MOSLEY, WARDEN, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . _______________________________ 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 September 28, 2006. On N o v e m b e r 20, 2006 the court entered an order of procedure which instructed Plaintiff, a m o n g other things, to inform the court of any change in his address. (Doc. No. 11.) Said o rd e r further informed Plaintiff that a failure to comply with this requirement would result in a Recommendation that this complaint 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 te re d an order on August 15, 2008 directing Plaintiff to provide the court with his present a d d re s s on or before August 28, 2008. (Doc. No. 29.) Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the court's August 15 order would result in a Recommendation that this case * * * * * 2:06-CV-871-WKW (WO)

b e dismissed. (Id.) Because Plaintiff has filed nothing in response to this order, the court c o n c lu d e s that this case should be dismissed. 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 to c o m p ly 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 September 23, 2008. Any objections filed must specifically id e n ti f 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

2

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.

DONE this 10th day of September, 2008. /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3