Johnson v. The Alabama Board of Pardon and Paroles et al (INMATE 2)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate 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 2/17/2009. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 2/4/2009. (wcl, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2009 to attach the correct PDF document correcting a clerical error-the signature date should reflect 2/4/2009 and not 1/4/2009: # 1 main document) (wcl, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION _____________________________ G E O R G E JOHNSON, #112 158, P l a in tif f , v. T H E ALA. BD. PARDONS/PAROLES, e t al., D e f e n d a n ts . _____________________________ * * * * * 2:09-CV-7-TMH (WO)
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE O n January 9, 2009 the court granted Plaintiff fourteen days to file with the Clerk e ith e r the $350.00 filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
a c c o m p a n ie d by an affidavit in support thereof. (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff was cautioned that h is failure to comply with the January 9 order would result in a Recommendation that his c o m p la in t be dismissed. (Id.) The requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has not provided th e court with either the filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. C o n seq u en tly, the court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate for Plaintiff's f a ilu re s to comply with 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 O R D E R E D 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 17, 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 i s 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 4th d a y of February, 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?