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, )

Download PDF
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

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?