Eason v. The Alabama Board of Pardon and Paroles et al (INMATE2)

Filing 6

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Royzell Eason; it is the Recommendation of the Mag Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff'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 2/4/09. (vma, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION _____________________________ R O Y Z E L L EASON, #117 051, 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-9-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 day of February 2009.

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

-2-