Bullard v. Giles et al (INMATE2)

Filing 4

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Harold Douglas Bullard; it is the Recommendation of the Mag Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for Petitioner's failures to comply with the orders of the court and to prosecute this action; Objections to R&R due by 4/22/2009. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 4/8/09. (vma, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA E A S T E R N DIVISION _____________________________ H A R O L D DOUGLAS BULLARD # 2 2 5 596 P e t i t io n e r , v. J .C . GILES, et al., Respondents. _____________________________ * * * * * 3:09-CV-189-TMH (WO)

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE O n March 11, 2009 the court granted Petitioner fifteen days to file with the Clerk e ith e r the $5.00 filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied b y an affidavit in support thereof. Petitioner was cautioned that his failure to comply with the M a rc h 11 order would result in a Recommendation that his petition be dismissed. The

re q u is ite time has passed and Petitioner has not provided the court with either the filing fee o r a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Consequently, the court concludes that d is m is s a l of this case is appropriate for Petitioner's failures to comply with the orders of the c o u rt and to prosecute this action. 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 failures to comply with the orders of the c o u rt and to prosecute this action. It is further O R D E R E D that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

R e c o m m e n d a tio n on or before April 22, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically id e n tif y the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. F r iv o lo u s , conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The p a rtie s are advised that 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 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 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 8 th day of April 2009.

/s/Terry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-