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, )

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?