Wilson v. Quinley (INMATE 2)

Filing 8

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action and complywith the orders of this court. Objections to R&R due by 12/7/2009. Signed by Honorable Susan Russ Walker on 11/23/2009. (cb, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION _____________________________ JOHN ALVIN WILSON #2008157142 Plaintiff, v. OFFICER QUINLEY D-24, Defendant. _____________________________ * * * * * 2:09-CV-906-TMH (WO)

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff filed the above-captioned action in this court on September 9, 2009. On October 15, 2009 the court entered an order directing Plaintiff to file an amendment to his complaint on or before October 30, 2009. (See Doc. No. 5.) Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the October 15 order would result in a Recommendation that his complaint be dismissed. (Id.) The requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has not complied with the order of the court. Consequently, the court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action and comply with the orders of the court. Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action and comply with the orders of this court. It is further ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before December 7, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. Done, this 24th day of November, 2009. /s/ Susan Russ Walker SUSAN RUSS WALKER CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2