Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-945-MHT [WO]
01-12-2015
CALVIN COCHRAN, #292 258, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRAWICK, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On September 17, 2014, the court granted Plaintiff twenty-one days to forward to the Clerk an initial partial filing fee in the amount of $5.95. Doc. No. 3. Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the September 17 order would result in a Recommendation that his complaint be dismissed. Id. On November 19, 2014, the court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his case should not be dismissed for his failure to pay the initial partial filing fee as directed in the September 17, 2014, order. Doc. No. 4. The order advised Plaintiff to inform the court whether he authorized prison officials to withdraw the funds from his prison account for payment of the initial partial filing fee, whether he was unable to comply at this time with the September 17 order, or whether he simply had chosen not to submit the filing fee. Id.
The requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has not provided the court with the initial partial filing fee nor has he responded to the court's November 19, 2014, order to show cause. Consequently, the court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate for Plaintiff's failures to comply with the orders of the court and prosecute this action.
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to comply with the orders of this court and prosecute this action.
It is further
ORDERED that on or before January 26, 2015, Plaintiff may file an objection to the Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is advised this Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.
Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar a 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 (11th 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 12th day of January, 2015.
/s/Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE