Russell v. McKenzie et al
Filing
16
ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's report and ACCEPTS the recommendation; this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Judge Liles C Burke on 11/26/2024. (AHI)
FILED
2024 Nov-26 PM 04:03
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LIONEL RUSSELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDON MCKENZIE, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:23-cv-01357-LCB-NAD
ORDER
Lionel Russell, an Alabama state prisoner, brought this suit under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. (Doc. 1). On September 24, 2024, Magistrate Judge Danella noted Russell’s
correct mailing address had changed, directed that his address be updated, and
ordered Russell to notify the court, within 14 days, that the updated address was
correct and that Russell wished to continue prosecuting this action. (Doc. 14). Judge
Danella cautioned Russell that the failure to comply within the time permitted could
result in the Court dismissing this case for lack of prosecution. (Id., at 2).
When Russell failed to comply with or otherwise respond to that order, Judge
Danella entered a report in which he recommended that the Court dismiss this action
without prejudice based on Russell’s failure to prosecute. (Doc. 15). In the report,
Judge Danella advised Russell of his right to file specific written objections within
14 days. (Id., at 2-3). That time has expired without Russell filing objections or any
other pleadings with the court.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
court file, including the report and recommendation, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate
Judge Danella’s report and ACCEPTS the recommendation. Accordingly, the
Court ORDERS that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
failure to prosecute. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.
For information regarding the cost of appeal, see the attached notice.
DONE and ORDERED this November 26, 2024.
_________________________________
LILES C. BURKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
United States Court of Appeals
Eleventh Circuit
56 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
David J. Smith
Clerk of Court
In Replying Give Number
of Case and Names of Parties
NOTICE TO PRISONERS CONCERNING CIVIL APPEALS
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 REQUIRES that all prisoners pay the Court’s
$60.00 docket fee plus $5.00 filing fee (for a total of $605.00) when appealing any civil judgment.
If you wish to appeal in a civil case that Act requires that upon filing a notice of appeal
you either:
(1)
Pay the total $605.00 fee to the clerk of the district court from which
this case arose; or
(2)
arrange to have a prison official certify to the district court from
which the appeal arose the average monthly deposits and balances
in your prison account for each of the six months preceding the filing
of a notice of appeal.
If you proceed with option (2) above, the Act requires that the district court order you to
pay an initial partial fee of at least 20% of the greater of either the average monthly deposits or
of the average monthly balances shown in your prison account. The remainder of the total $605.00
fee will thereafter be deducted from your prison account each month that your account balance
exceeds $10.00. Each such monthly deduction shall equal 20% of all deposits to your prison
account during the previous month, until the total $605.00 fee is paid. (If your prison account
statement shows that you cannot pay even the required initial partial fee, your appeal may
nevertheless proceed, BUT THE TOTAL $605.00 FEE WILL BE ASSESSED AGAINST AND
WILL BE DEDUCTED FROM FUTURE DEPOSITS TO YOUR PRISON ACCOUNT.)
Fees are not refundable, regardless of outcome, and deductions from your prison account
will continue until the total $605.00 fee is collected, even if an appeal is unsuccessful.
David J. Smith
Clerk of Court
PLRA Notice
3
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?