Jarrett v. Hardy et al (INMATE1)

Filing 17

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plf to comply with the orders of this court; Objections to R&R due by 2/8/2010. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 1/25/2010. (wcl, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FO R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O RT H E RN DIVISION STANLEY JARRETT, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09-CV-1048-TMH [WO]

A. J. HARDY, et al., Defendants.

R EC OM M EN DA TIO N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Stanley Jarrett ["Jarrett"], an indigent inmate, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on November 13, 2009. In this complaint, Jarrett challenges actions taken against him during his confinement at the Montgomery City Jail. On January 4, 2010, this court entered an order, a copy of which the Clerk mailed to Jarrett. The postal service returned this order because Jarrett no longer resided at the address he had last provided to the court. The order of procedure entered in this case specifically directed Jarrett to immediately inform the court of any change in his address. Order of November 18, 2009 - Court Document No. 6 at 5. In light of the foregoing, the court entered an order requiring that on or before January 19, 2010 Jarrett inform the court of his present address. Order of January 12, 2010 - Court Doc. No. 15. Jarrett has filed nothing in response to the aforementioned order and this case cannot properly proceed in his absence. The court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to comply with the orders of this court. It is further

OR D E R E D that on or before February 8, 2010 the parties may file objections to the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. 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 advisements in the M agistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation 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 25th day of January, 2010.

/s/Terry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2