Simmonds v. Unknown Defendant
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the 2 Final Report and Recommendation. The action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Local Rule 41.2(C). Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 11/8/2013. (anc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
ALDERAY Q. SIMMONDS,
Inmate No. 1234041
Plaintiff,
v.
1:13-cv-2360-WSD
UNKNOWN DEFENDANT,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand’s Final
Report and Recommendation [2] (“R&R”) recommending that this action be
dismissed.
I.
BACKGROUND
On July 15, 2013, Plaintiff Alderay Q. Simmonds (“Plaintiff”), then an
inmate at the Fulton County Jail, proceeding pro se, filed this action alleging civil
rights abuses. At the time that this case was filed, Plaintiff had another civil rights
action pending in the Court. See Simmonds v. Unknown, Civil Action No. 1:13cv-170-WSD. In Plaintiff’s other case, the Court encountered difficulties in
mailing its Orders to Plaintiff at the Fulton County Jail (see Id., Doc. 6), and
learned that Plaintiff was released from the Fulton County Jail on August 29, 2013.
See http://justice.fultoncountyga.gov/PAJailManager/JailingDetail.aspx?
JailingID=343 (last visited November 6, 2013). Plaintiff has not provided the
Court with his new address in either action.
On October 22, 2013, Magistrate Judge Anand issued his R&R. In it, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 41.2(C) because Plaintiff failed to notify the
Court of his current address, and as a result, the Court is unaware of “Plaintiff’s
whereabouts.” (R&R at 2). No objection has been filed.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (Supp. V 2011);
Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). A
district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If no party has objected to the report and recommendation,
a court conducts only a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714
2
F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).
B.
Analysis
As the Magistrate Judge noted in his October 22, 2013 R&R, the Court
currently does not have any information about Plaintiff’s address and does not
have other contact information for him. Plaintiff’s failure to provide the Court
with accurate contact information has delayed and adversely affected the
management of this case, including because these proceedings cannot continue
without being able to communicate with Plaintiff.
Local Rule 41.2(C) provides that
[t]he failure . . . of a party appearing pro se to keep the clerk’s office
informed of any change in address and/or telephone number which
causes a delay or otherwise adversely affects the management of the
case shall constitute grounds . . . for dismissal of the action without
prejudice.
The Court does not find plain error in the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
recommendations in his R&R that this action be dismissed without prejudice.
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand’s Final
Report and Recommendation [2] is ADOPTED, and this action is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Local Rule 41.2(C).
3
SO ORDERED this 8th day of November, 2013.
4
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?