Bowman v. Boyd et al (INMATE3)

Filing 4

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Robie Alan Bowman; it is the Recommendation of the Mag 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 10/27/2008. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 10/14/08. (vma, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION ROBIE ALAN BOWMAN, # 214230, Petitioner, v LOUIS BOYD, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 3:08cv765-TMH (WO)

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On September 18, 2008 (Doc. No. 3), this court entered an order that directed Petitioner to submit the $5.00 filing fee within fourteen (14) days of the filing of that order. Petitioner was specifically cautioned that his failure to comply with the court's September 18 order would result in a recommendation that his case be dismissed. (See Doc. No. 3 at 2.) The requisite time has passed, and Petitioner has failed to submit the filing fee and has filed nothing else in response to this court's order. Consequently, the court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate for Petitioner's failure to comply with the court's order. Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Petitioner's failure to comply with the order of this court. It is further

ORDERED that on or before October 27, 2008, 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 Magistrate 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 14th day of October, 2008.

/s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2