Brown et al v. Barbour County Sheriff's Department (MAG+)
ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Mag Judge that plfs' complaint be DISMISSED for the reasons stated; ORDERING that plf's application to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is DENIED due to plfs' failure to comply with the Court's order that each plf complete separate in forma pauperis applications; Objections to R&R due by 3/2/2009. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 2/17/09. (djy, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION M A R C U S BROWN, et al., P l a i n t if f s , v. B A R B O U R COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTM ENT, D e f e n d a n t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C A S E NO.: 2:08-cv-1018-MHT
O R D E R AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE O n December 24, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint and Motion to Proceed In Forma P a u p e ris . (Docs. #2 & 3). Plaintiffs' complaint appears to allege violations of their c o n stitu tio n a l rights based upon an alleged search of their residence. On January 7, 2009, th is matter was referred to the undersigned for action or recommendation on all pretrial m a t te rs (Doc. #4). On initial review, the Court observed that Plaintiffs' complaint suffers f ro m fatal defects, namely the failure to state a cause of action against a legal entity subject to suit. Thus, on January 15, 2009, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to amend their complaint by Ja n u a ry 23, 2009. (Doc. #5). The Court also instructed Plaintiffs to provide separately co m p leted applications for in forma pauperis status. Finally, the Court admonished Plaintiffs th a t "failure to comply with this Order will lead the undersigned to recommend to the d istrict judge that the Complaint be dismissed for failure to comply with this Court's O r d e r s and abandonment of claim(s)." Order (Doc. #5) at 2 (emphasis in original). On J a n u a ry 26, 2009, after Plaintiffs failed to respond to the Court's order of January 15, 2009,
the Court ordered Plaintiffs to submit their amended complaint by February 2, 2009, or show c a u se why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the orders of the C o u rt. (Doc. #6). Plaintiffs have not responded to the Court's orders of January 15, 2009, and January 2 6 , 2009. Dismissal is a permissible sanction for failure to prosecute or obey the orders of th e Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1 9 8 5 ); see also Norman v. Montgomery Bd. Of Educ., 177 Fed. App'x 939, 941 (11th Cir. 2 0 0 6 ) (finding no abuse of discretion in district court's dismissal of plaintiff's suit where pro s e litigant failed to amend deficient complaint as ordered). This power may be exercised by th e Court sua sponte. Lopez v. Aransas County Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1 9 7 8 ). Likewise, as noted by the Court in its Order of January 15, 2009, this matter is subject to dismissal because Plaintiffs are attempting to sue only the Barbour County Sheriff's D e p a rtm e n t, an entity which, under Alabama law, lacks the capacity to be sued. Dean v. B a r b e r, 951 F.2d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION o f the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge that Plaintiffs' complaint be DISMISSED f o r the reasons stated above. It is further O R D E R E D that Plaintiffs' Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #2) is D E N IE D due to Plaintiffs' failure to comply with the Court's order that each Plaintiff c o m p le te separate in forma pauperis applications. It is further O R D E R E D that Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said R e c o m m e n d a tio n on or before March 2, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically
identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff 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 (5th C ir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of P r ic h a r d , 661 F.2d 1206 (11th C ir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions 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 17th day of February, 2009.
/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. W A L L A C E 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?