Cannon v. The State of Alabama et al (INMATE 2)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Byron Keith Cannon, that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Petitioner's failures to comply with the order of the court and to prosecute this action. Objections to R&R due by 1/19/2010. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr. on 1/6/2010. (dmn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION _____________________________ BYRON KEITH CANNON, #254 379 Petitioner, v. STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., Respondents. _____________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On December 8, 2009 the court entered an order directing Petitioner to show cause why the instant petition should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with a court order directing him to pay the $5.00 filing fee. Petitioner was cautioned that his failure to pay the filing fee would result in a Recommendation that this petition be dismissed. (See Doc. No. 5.) The requisite time has passed and Petitioner has not complied with the order of the court directing that he remit the $5.00 filing fee to the court. Consequently, the court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate for Petitioner's failures to comply with the order of the court and prosecute this action. Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Petitioner's failures to comply with the order of the court and to prosecute this action. It is further * * * * 2:09-CV-992-ID (WO)
ORDERED that on or before January 19, 2010 the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the Recommendation. 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 6th day of January 2010.
/s/ Wallce Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?