Smith v. Hamilton et al (INMATE2)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint and 5 Amendment to Complaint that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 2/26/2009. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 2/11/2009. (dmn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ________________________________ A N D R E A S J. SMITH P l a in tif f , v. * * * 2:08-CV-642-WHA (WO)
JOHN C. HAMILTON (AKA J.C.), * e t 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 P la in tif f , a prison inmate, filed this complaint on August 7, 2008. On August 18, 2008 th e court directed Defendants to file an answer and written report addressing Plaintiff's c la im s for relief. In compliance with the court's order, Defendants submitted answers and w r itte n reports (Doc. Nos. 22, 26) which contained relevant evidentiary materials refuting the a l le g a tio n s presented in the instant complaint. The court then issued an order directing P la in tif f to file a response to Defendants' answers and written reports. (Doc. No. 27.) P lain tiff was advised that his failure to respond to Defendants' answers and written reports w o u ld be treated by the court "as an abandonment of the claims set forth in the complaint a n d as a failure to prosecute this action." Id. (emphasis in original). Additionally, P la in t if f was "specifically cautioned that [his failure] to file a response in compliance w ith the directives of this order" would result in the dismissal of this case. (Id.) The time allotted Plaintiff for the filing of a response expired on January 26, 2009.
A s of the present date, Plaintiff has filed nothing in opposition to Defendants' answers and w ritten reports as required by order filed January 5, 2009. In light of the foregoing, the court c o n c lu d e s that this case should be dismissed. The court has reviewed the file in this case to determine whether less drastic sa n c tio n s than dismissal are appropriate. After such review, it is clear that dismissal of this c a se is the proper sanction. Plaintiff is an indigent state inmate. Thus, the imposition of m o n e ta ry or other punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual. Additionally, P l a i n tif f has exhibited a lack of respect for this court and its authority as he has failed to c o m p ly with the directives of the orders entered in this case. It is, therefore, apparent that a n y additional effort by this court to secure Plaintiff's compliance would be unavailing. Consequently, the court concludes that Plaintiff's abandonment of his claims, his failure to c o m p ly with the orders of this court, and his failure to properly prosecute this cause of action w a rr a n t dismissal of this case. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962)
( in t e rp r e tin g Rule 41(b) not to restrict the court's inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte an a c tio n for lack of prosecution); World Thrust Films, Inc., v. International Family E n te rta in m e n t, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454, 1456-57 (11 th Cir. 1995). F o r 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
R ec o m m en d atio n on or before February 26, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically id e n tify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is o b je c tin g . Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District C o u rt. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, th e re f o re , 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 11 th day of February 2009.
/s/Terry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER 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?