Grant v. Hardy et al (INMATE 1)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plf to properly prosecute this cause of action; Objections to R&R due by 1/4/2010. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 12/16/2009. (wcl, )
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 W IL L IE GRANT, Plaintiff, v. A . J. HARDY, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CASE NO. 2:09-CV-1064-TMH [WO]
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE W illie Grant ["Grant"], an indigent inmate, initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint c h a lle n g in g actions taken against him at the Montgomery City Jail. On November 30, 2009, th is court entered a notice, a copy of which the Clerk mailed to Grant. The postal service re tu rn e d this document because Grant no longer resided at the address he had provided to the co u rt. In light of the foregoing, the court entered an order requiring that on or before D e c e m b e r 15, 2009 Grant inform the court of his present address. Order of December 8, 2 0 0 9 - Court Doc. No. 8. This order specifically cautioned Grant that his failure to comply w ith its directives would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. Grant h a s filed nothing in response to the December 8, 2009 order. The court therefore concludes th a t 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 properly prosecute this cause of
ac tio n . It is further ORDERED that on or before January 4, 2010 the parties may file objections to the R e c o m m e n d a tio n . 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 16 th day of December, 2009.
/s /T e r r y F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER 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?