Golden v. District Attorney et al

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that complaint be dismissed re 1 Complaint filed by Andre Alexis Golden Objections to R&R due by 1/22/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 1/8/2009. (mah)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DWISION ANDRE ALEXIS GOLDEN, ) ) Petitioner, ) v. ) SHERIFF, Chatham County, ) Case No. CV408-195 Respondent. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On October 2, 2008, petitioner's pleading was transferred to this district from the Northern District of Georgia. (Doc. 3.) Prior to its transfer, Golden's pleading had first been docketed by the Clerk as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition; it was then converted by order of the court to a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. (j) After reviewing the pleading, however, this Court expressed its uncertainty as to what type of claim petitioner sought to file. (Doc. 4 at 2.) As a result, in an Order entered November 12, 2008, the Court directed the Clerk to mail to petitioner the district's standard § 2254 petition, its § 1983 form complaint, and the form for requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doe. 4 at 3.) Petitioner was advised that his failure to complete and return either the § 2254 petition or the § 1983 form complaint (along with either a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or the payment of the filing fee) within 30 days of the Order could result in the dismissal without prejudice of this action. (Id) Plaintiff has failed to return any of the provided forms. In addition, he has made no further filings in this case since submitting his complaint in the Northern District of Georgia on September 15, 2008. Accordingly, his complaint should be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute. SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED this 8th day of January, 2009. Isi G.R. SMITH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

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?