Henderson v. Kilby Medical Staff et al (INMATE1)

Filing 8

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Mag Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plf to prosecute this action; Objections to R&R due by 11/24/2009. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 11/10/09. (djy, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION J O S E P H ALLEN HENDERSON, #246414, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) K IL B Y MEDICAL STAFF, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-955-TMH [WO]

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE J o s e p h Allen Henderson ["Henderson"] initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint c h a lle n g in g the failure to timely provide him his insulin on one occasion in August of 2009. O n October 15, 2009, this court entered orders, copies of which the Clerk mailed to H e n d e rs o n . The postal service returned these orders because Henderson no longer resided a t the address he had provided to the court. In light of the foregoing, the court entered an o rd e r requiring that on or before October 30, 2009 Henderson inform the court of his present a d d re s s . Order of October 20, 2009 - Court Doc. No. 7. This order specifically cautioned H e n d e rs o n that his failure to comply with its directives would result in a recommendation th a t this case be dismissed. Id. Henderson has filed nothing in response to the October 20, 2 0 0 9 order. The court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. C O N C L U SIO N 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 failure of the plaintiff to prosecute this action. It is

f u r th e r ORDERED that on or before November 24, 2009 the parties may file objections to th e Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive o r general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised th a t 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 advisements in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the D is tric t Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from a tta c k in g on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the D i s t r i c t Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

W a in w r ig h t, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 3 3 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en b a n c ), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed d o w n prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. D o n e this 10th day of November, 2009.

/s /T e r r y F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2