Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-43-WHA (WO)
03-01-2016
DERRICK L. EAST, #233351, Plaintiff, v. DR. T. SIDDIQ, Defendant.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The court received this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action from Derrick L. East, a state inmate, on January 20, 2016. However, East did not file the applicable $350 filing fee and $50 administrative fee necessary when a plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis, nor did he submit an original affidavit in support of a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by the required documentation from the inmate account clerk. Consequently, the court did not have the information essential in determining whether East should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this case and, therefore, entered an order requiring that East provide the court with the requisite information on or before February 11, 2016. Order of January 21, 2016 - Doc. No. 2 at 1-2. The court specifically cautioned East that failure to comply with this order would result in a Recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. at 2.
As of the present date, East has filed nothing in response to the aforementioned order. The court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11 Cir. 1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232 Fed. App'x 924 (11 Cir. 2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate's § 1983 action for failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with court's prior order directing amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply).
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for East's failure to file the requisite fees or provide the court with financial information in compliance with the order of this court.
It is further
ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to this Recommendation on or before March 16, 2016. A party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which the objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S .C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of the party to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982); 11 CIR. R. 3-1. See Stein v. Lanning Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc).
Done this 1st day of March, 2016.
/s/Terry F. Moorer
TERRY F. MOORER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE