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, )

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