Henry v. Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles (INMATE2)

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Bruce Henry; 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 6/1/2009. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 5/18/09. (vma, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION ______________________________ B R U C E HENRY, #113 280 P l a in tif f , v. A L A B A M A BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES, * * * * * D e f e n d a n t. __________________________________ R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On April 28, 2009 the court directed Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not b e dismissed for his failure to forward to the Clerk an initial partial filing fee in the amount o f $6.66. (Doc. No. 3.) The order informed Plaintiff to advise the court whether he authorized p r i s o n officials to withdraw the funds from his prison account for payment of the initial p a rtia l filing fee, whether he simply had chosen not to submit the filing fee, or whether he w a s unable to comply at this time with the order directing payment of the initial partial filing f e e . (Id.) Plaintiff was also cautioned that his failure to comply with the April 28 order 2:09-CV-215-TMH (WO) w o u ld result in a Recommendation that his complaint be dismissed. (Id.) T h e requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has not provided the court with the initial p a rtia l filing fee nor has he responded to the court's April 28, 2009 order to show cause. 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 said R e c o m m e n d a tio n on or before June 1, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically identify th e findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party object. Frivolous, co n clus ive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are a d v is e d that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not a p p e a la b le . F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the M a g i s 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 r r 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 2 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 18th day of May 2009. /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3

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?