Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-586-WKW [WO]
11-24-2015
STACY HARRISON, #221 426, Plaintiff, v. SGT. LOVELACE, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on June 11, 2014. When he filed this complaint, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Easterling Correctional Facility in Clio, Alabama. All parties have an affirmative duty to inform this court of any change of address during the pendency of their actions. Plaintiff was provided notice of this requirement in the court's August 12, 2014, order of procedure. See Doc. No. 12.
On October 23, 2015, the envelope containing Plaintiff's copy of an order filed October 20, 2015, was returned to the court marked as undeliverable because Plaintiff is no longer at the address he had provided to the court when he filed this action. The court entered an order on October 26, 2015, directing Plaintiff to provide the court with his present address by November 5, 2015. Doc. No. 28. Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the court's October 26 order would result in a recommendation this case be dismissed. Id. Plaintiff has filed no response to the court's October 26, 2015, show cause order nor provided the court with a current service address.
Upon review of the pleadings filed, the undersigned finds the court file contains no alternate address for Plaintiff and that he has not provided this court with a current address since the inception of filing the instant complaint. The undersigned, therefore, concludes this case is due to be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to comply with the orders of the court and to prosecute this action.
It is further
ORDERED that on or before December 11, 2015, Plaintiff may file an objection to the Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. 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 factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall "waive the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions" except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).
Done, this 24th day of November 2015.
/s/Terry F. Moorer
TERRY F. MOORER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE