Casey v. Giles et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 12

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plf to comply with the orders of this court and his failure to properly prosecute this action; Objections to R&R due by 4/9/2007. Signed by Judge Susan Russ Walker on 3/27/2007. (wcl, )

Download PDF
Casey v. Giles et al (INMATE 1) Doc. 12 Case 2:07-cv-00067-ID-SRW Document 12 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 1 of 2 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ROBERT JAMAR CASEY, AIS #241411, Plaintiff, v. J. C. GILES, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07-CV-67-ID RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Robert Jamar Casey ["Casey"], a state inmate, filed this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action in which he challenges a disciplinary lodged against him for indecent exposure/exhibitionism. Upon review of the complaint, the court deemed it necessary that Casey file an amended complaint and therefore entered an order requiring that he undertake such action. Order of January 24, 2007 - Court Doc. No. 4. The court specifically cautioned Casey that his "fail[ure] to comply with the directives of this order" would result in entry of a recommendation "that this case be dismissed." Id. at 2. The time allowed Casey for filing an amended complaint in compliance with the aforementioned order expired on February 7, 2007. As of the present date, Casey has failed to file the requisite amended complaint. The court therefore concludes that this case should be dismissed. Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to comply with the orders of this Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:07-cv-00067-ID-SRW Document 12 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 2 of 2 court and his failure to properly prosecute this action. It is further ORDERED that on or before April 9, 2007 the parties may file objections to the Recommendation. Any objection must specifically identify the findings in the Recommendation objected to. 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 in the Recommendation 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 decisions of the former Fifth Circuit issued prior to September 30, 1981. DONE, this 27th day of March, 2007. /s/ Susan Russ Walker SUSAN RUSS WALKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

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?