Jackson v. U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

Filing 6

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint filed by Myron J. Jackson; Accordingly, the undersigned Recommends that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff's failure to obey this Court's Orders or otherwise prosecute this action; Objections to R&R due by 6/24/2009. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 6/11/09. (vma, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION _______________________________ M Y R O N J. JACKSON, P l a in tif f , v. U.S. DISTRICT COURT for the M ID D L E DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, D e f e n d a n t. _______________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

2:09-CV-449-ID

R E P O R T AND RECOMMENDATION B e f o r e the Court is Plaintiff's pro se Complaint (Doc. #1). This matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings and determination or re c o m m e n d a tio n as may be appropriate. (Doc. #4). On May 28, 2009, the Court entered an O rde r which noted several apparent defects in Plaintiff's Complaint. Specifically, the Court re m a rk e d upon a preliminary review of the Complaint, the Court is unable to clearly d isc e rn the substance of Plaintiff's claims against the District Court. P lain tiff 's factual allegations loosely describe his presumably unsatisfactory interac tio n s with what appears to be intake personnel in the Clerk of Court's o f f ic e . Plaintiff also avers that he has "death threats" against him and a " b o u n ty" on his life. He concludes that "this court[,] like all other government o ff ic ials with the run around and lack to execute constitutional rights conspire to interfere with civil rights and civil liberties." For any damages he is p u rp o rte d to have suffered, Plaintiff seeks the following relief: "Punitive: $ 1 5 1 , 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 U.S. Dollars." The Complaint does not specify how any a c tio n s by the District Court caused him any cognizable harm and does not sp e c if y what legal authority provides him with an avenue of relief in this C o u rt .

O rd e r (Doc. #5) at 1-2. Accordingly, the Court ordered Plaintiff to amend his Complaint. T h e Court also admonished Plaintiff that "his failure to comply with this Order will lead the u n d e r s ig n e d to recommend to the district judge that the Complaint be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's Orders and abandonment of his claim(s)." Order (Doc. #5) at 2 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint as instructed by th e Court. Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, w i t h o u t prejudice, due to Plaintiff's failure to obey this Court's Orders or otherwise p ro s e c u te this action.1 It is further O R D E R E D that Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file any objections to the said R e c o m m e n d a tio n on or before June 24, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically identify th e findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party objects. F riv o lo u s, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. P la in tif f is advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. 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 f in d in g s in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain

Additionally, and in the alternative, Plaintiff's Complaint is subject to dismissal because the allegations of the Complaint are frivolous and fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).
1

2

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 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.

DONE this 11th day of June, 2009.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3