Woods et al v. Donalds (INMATE 2)

Filing 10

RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action properly and comply with the orders of this court. Objections to R&R due by 4/30/2009. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 4/17/09. (sl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ____________________________ TIMOTHY WOODS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OFFICER DONALDS, et al., Defendants. ____________________________ * * * * * 2:09-CV-113-WHA (WO) RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action on February 13, 2009. On March 11, 2009 the court mailed an order to Plaintiff at the most recent address the court had on file for him. (See Doc. No. 8.) That order was returned to the court on March 26, 2009 marked as undeliverable. Accordingly, on March 31, 2009 the court entered an order directing Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as this matter cannot continue if Plaintiff's whereabouts remain unknown. (Doc. No. 9.) The undersigned cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the court's March 31 order would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. (Id.) Because Plaintiff has filed nothing in response to this order, the court concludes that this case should be dismissed. Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action properly and to comply with the orders of this court. It is further ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said Recommendation on or before April 30, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 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 September 30, 1981. Done this 17th day of April, 2009. /s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

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?