Blair v. Meeks (INMATE 2)

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Billy Micheal Blair, that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action and comply with the orders of this court. Objections to R&R due by 9/22/2009. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 9/9/2009. (dmn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION ____________________________ M IC H A E L BLAIR, P l a in tif f , v. S H E R IF F DENNIS MEEKS, D e f e n d a n t. ____________________________ * * * * * 2:09-CV-734-ID (WO)

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE O n August 11, 2009 the court entered an order granting Plaintiff fourteen days to file a n amendment to his complaint. (See Doc. No. 3.) Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the August 11 order would result in a Recommendation that his complaint b e dismissed. (Id.) The requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has not complied with the o rd e r of the court. Consequently, the court concludes that dismissal of this case is

a p p ro p ria te for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action and comply with the orders of the c o u rt. 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 September 22, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically

id e n tif y the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. F r iv o lo u s , conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The p a rtie s are 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 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 9 th day of September 2009.

/s /T e r r y F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2