Macon v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Susan Russ Walker on 8/7/2012. (jg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
FRENCHER D. WYATT MACON,
#150609,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALA. STATE WDN. III FRANK
ALBRIGHT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-903-SRW
)
[WO]
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections, filed
this complaint on October 19, 2011. On April 2, 2012, the court directed Defendants to file
an answer and written report addressing Plaintiff's claims for relief. In compliance with the
court’s order, Defendants submitted an answer and written report on June 13, 2012, which
contained relevant evidentiary materials refuting the allegations presented in the instant
complaint. The court then issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’
answer and written report. (Doc. No. 33.) Plaintiff was advised that her failure to respond
to Defendants’ answer and written report would be treated by the court "as an abandonment
of the claims set forth in the complaint and as a failure to prosecute this
action."(emphasis in original). (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff was "specifically cautioned
that [her failure] to file a response in compliance with the directives of this order" would
result in the dismissal of this case. ( Id.)
The time allotted Plaintiff for the filing of a response expired on July 5, 2012. As of

the present date, Plaintiff has filed nothing in opposition to Defendants’ answer and written
report as required by order filed June 14, 2012. In light of the foregoing, the court
concludes that this case should be dismissed.
The court has reviewed the file in this case to determine whether less drastic
sanctions than dismissal are appropriate. After such review, it is clear that dismissal of this
case is the proper sanction. Plaintiff is an indigent state inmate. Thus, the imposition of
monetary or other punitive sanctions against her would be ineffectual. Additionally, Plaintiff
has exhibited a lack of respect for this court and its authority as she has failed to comply with
the directives of the orders entered in this case. It is, therefore, apparent that any additional
effort by this court to secure Plaintiff’s compliance would be unavailing. Consequently, the
court concludes that Plaintiff’s abandonment of her claims, her failure to comply with the
orders of this court, and her failure to properly prosecute this cause of action warrant
dismissal of this case.
For the foregoing reasons, the instant complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for
Plaintiff’s failures to prosecute this action and to comply with the orders of this court.
A separate judgement follows.
DONE, this 7th day of August, 2012.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker
SUSAN RUSS WALKER
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2