Sai Ranga v. Chertoff et al (INMATE 3)

Filing 17

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Mag Judge that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for plf's failures to prosecute this action properly and to comply with the orders of this court; Objections to R&R due by 11/4/2008. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 10/22/08. (djy, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION

P R A S H A N T H C. SAI RANGA, Plaintiff, v. M IC H A E L CHERTOFF, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C iv il Action No. 2:08cv694-TMH (WO)

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE P la in t if f filed this Bivens action 1 on August 22, 2008. At the time he filed his c o m p lain t, Plaintiff was an immigration civil detainee at the Federal Detention Center in O a k d a le , Louisiana. On September 2, 2008 (Doc. No. 7), this court entered an order in s tru c tin g Plaintiff to provide the clerk's office with the correct address of one of the named d e f e n d a n ts on or before September 17, 2008, or the defendant would be dismissed as a party to this suit. On September 11, 2008, the mail containing Plaintiff's copy of the September 2 order was returned to the court marked "returned to sender ­ refused ­ unable to forward." It has come to the court's attention that Plaintiff is no longer at the most recent address he p ro v id e d to the court, that he has departed the United States, and that his current location is unknow n. All parties have an affirmative duty to inform this court of any change of address
1

Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

d u rin g the pendency of their actions. Plaintiff received notice of this requirement in the c o u rt's August 26, 2008, order of procedure. (Doc. No.3 at p. 5, ¶5(h)). On October 7, 2008, th is court entered an order directing Plaintiff to inform the court of his current address. (Doc. N o . 12.) The court specifically cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the O c to b e r 7 order would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. (Id. at 2.) T h e requisite time has passed, and Plaintiff has filed nothing in response to the court's order. C o n s e q u e n tly, the court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate at this juncture. A c c o r d in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action properly and to comply with the orders of this court. It is further O R D E R E D that on or before November 4, 2008, the parties may file objections to th e Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive o r general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised th a t 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 advisements in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the D is tric t Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from a tta c k in g on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the 2

D is tric t Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice.

Nettles v.

W a in w r ig h t, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 3 3 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981) (en b a n c ), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed d o w n prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. D o n e this 22 n d day of October, 2008.

/s/Wallace Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3