Bullard v. Giles et al (INMATE2)
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
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?