Robinson v. Thomas et al (INMATE2)

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Mag Judge that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for plf's failures to comply with the orders of this court and to prosecute this action; Objections to R&R due by 2/9/2009. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 1/27/09. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ____________________________ R O B E R T JUNIOR ROBINSON, #171 121 P l a in tif f , v. W A R D E N LEVAN THOMAS, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . ____________________________ * * * * * 2:08-CV-1008-MEF (WO)

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE O n January 6, 2009 the court granted Plaintiff fifteen days to file with the Clerk either th e $350.00 filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by an affidavit in support thereof. (Doc. No. 2.) Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to c o m p ly with the January 6 order would result in a Recommendation that his complaint be d is m is s e d . (Id.) The requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has not provided the court with e ith e r the filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Consequently, the c o u rt concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate for Plaintiff's failures to comply w ith the orders of the court and to prosecute this action. 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 comply with the orders of this c o u rt and to prosecute this action. It is further

ORDERED 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 February 9, 2009. 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 27 th day of January 2009.

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