Floyd et al v. Covington County Jail et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 9

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 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 11/13/2008. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 11/3/2008. (cb, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION ____________________________ R O Y FLOYD P l a in tif f , v. C O V IN G T O N COUNTY JAIL, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . ____________________________ * * * * * 2:08-CV-687-TMH (WO) RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE O n August 29, 2008 the court entered an order granting Plaintiff seventeen days to file a n amendment to his complaint. (See Doc. No. 5.) Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the August 29 order would result in a Recommendation that his complaint b e dismissed. (Id.) The court extended the deadline for the filing of the complaint, on m o tio n of Plaintiff, to and including October 15, 2008. The requisite time, as extended, has p as sed and Plaintiff has not complied with the order 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 November 13, 2008. 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 3rd day of October 2008. /s /T e r r y F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER U N IT E D 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?