Smith v. Walmart

Full title: PETER JAMES SMITH, Plaintiff, v. WALMART, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Jan 8, 2016

CIV. ACT. NO. 2:15cv899-WKW-TFM (WO) (M.D. Ala. Jan. 8, 2016)

Opinion

CIV. ACT. NO. 2:15cv899-WKW-TFM (WO)

01-08-2016

PETER JAMES SMITH, Plaintiff, v. WALMART, Defendant.

TERRY F. MOORER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This pro se complaint was filed by the plaintiff, Peter James Smith, in the Montgomery County Circuit Court on December 4, 2015. Doc. 1. On December 9, 2015, this court entered an order referring the case to the Magistrate Judge. Doc. 3. On December 11, 2015, this court ordered the plaintiff to file an amended complaint which presents his claims with clarity and detailed factual allegations. Doc. 4. On December 21, 2015, these documents were "return[ed] to sender" because there was "no such number" and no forwarding address. On December 22, 2015, the court entered an order requiring that, on or before December 7, 2016, the plaintiff inform the court of his present address. Doc. 5. The plaintiff was cautioned that the failure to comply with this order would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. The plaintiff has filed nothing in response to this order. The court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed.

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for the failure of the plaintiff to prosecute this action and his failure to comply with the orders of this court.

Additionally, it is

ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to the said Recommendation on or before January 26, 2016. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11^th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Done this 8th day of January, 2015.

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE