Pickard v. Moore et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 34

RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action properly and comply with the orders of this court. Objections to R&R due by 7/27/2009. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 7/14/09. (sl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION _______________________________ D A N N Y W. PICKARD, #256 041 P l a in tif f , v. S G T . MOORE, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . _______________________________ * * * * * 3:07-CV-270-MHT (WO)

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE T h is 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was filed by Plaintiff on March 28, 2009. On March 30, 2 0 0 7 the court entered an order of procedure which instructed Plaintiff, among other things, to inform the court of any change in his address. (Doc. No. 4.) The order further informed P la in tif f that failure to comply with this specific directive would result in a Recommendation th a t his case be dismissed. (Id.) It recently came to the court's attention that Plaintiff is no longer residing at the most re c en t service address he provided to the court. Consequently, the court entered an order on Ju ly 2, 2009 directing Plaintiff to provide the court with his present address on or before July 1 6 , 2009. (Doc. No. 33.) Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the court's J u ly 2 order would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. (Id.) On July 14, 2 0 0 9 Plaintiff's copy of the court's July 2 order was returned to the court marked as u n d e liv e ra b le . As it appears clear that Plaintiff is no longer residing at the most recent

a d d r e ss he provided to the court and that he has not provided this court with a new address f o r service, the undersigned concludes that dismissal of the complaint at this juncture is a p p ro p ri a te . Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case b e DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action properly and to comply with the orders of this court. It is further O R D E R E D that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the R e c o m m e n d a tio n on or before July 27, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically identify th e findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, co n clus ive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are a d v is e d that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not a p p e a la b le . F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the M a g is tra te Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District C o u rt of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual f in d in g s in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain e rr o r or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein v . Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of P r ic h a r d , 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the

2

d e c is io n s of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on S e p te m b e r 30, 1981. D o n e , this 14 th day of July 2009.

/s / Wallace Capel, Jr. W A L L A C E CAPEL, JR. U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3