Washington v. City of Montgomery (INMATE2)

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action and comply with the orders of this court; Objections to R&R due by 5/18/2009. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 5/5/2009. (cc, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION _____________________________ PETER ELLIS WASHINGTON P la in ti ff , v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al., Defendants. ____________________________ * * * * * 2:09-CV-263-TMH (WO) RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE O n April 1, 2009 the court entered an order granting Plaintiff fourteen days to file an a m e n d m e n t to his complaint. (See Doc. No. 3.) Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to c o m p l y with the April 1 order would result in a Recommendation that his complaint be d is m is s e d . (Id.) The requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has not complied with the order o f the court. Consequently, the court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate for P lain tiff 's failures to prosecute this action and comply with the orders of the court. 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 prosecute this action and comply w ith the orders of this court. 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 May 18, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically identify th e findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. 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 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 fin 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 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 5 th day of May 2009. /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. U N IT E D 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?