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, )

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