Lemieux v. Keller (INMATE 3)

Filing 3

WITHDRAWN pursuant to 5 Order: RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Petitioner's failure to comply with the order of this court. Objections to R&R due by 3/3/2010. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 2/18/2010. (br, ) Modified on 2/24/2010 (br, ).

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 D A V ID M. LEMIEUX, P e titio n e r, v J.A. KELLER, R e sp o n d e n t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.2:10cv40-TMH (WO) R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE O n January 19, 2010 (Doc. No. 2), this court entered an order that directed Petitioner to either submit the $5.00 filing fee on or before February 9, 2010, or file by that same date th e appropriate affidavit in support of a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this a c tio n for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2241. Petitioner was specifically cautioned th a t his failure to comply with the court's January 19 order would result in a recommendation th a t his case be dismissed. (See Doc. No. 2 at 1.) The requisite time has passed, and P etitio n e r has filed nothing in response to the court's order. Consequently, the court c o n c lu d e s that dismissal of this case is appropriate for Petitioner's failure to comply with the co u rt's order. 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 Petitioner's failure to comply with the order of this c o u rt. It is further O R D E R E D that on or before March 3, 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 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 3 3 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th 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 18 th day of February, 2010. /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. U N IT E D 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?