From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Headrick v. Alabama Department of Corrections

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
Dec 7, 2000
Civil Action No. 00-0866-BH-M (S.D. Ala. Dec. 7, 2000)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 00-0866-BH-M

December 7, 2000


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed a self-styled complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). Plaintiff did not pay the $150.00 filing fee, nor did he file a Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs. This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2, and is before the Court for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and to comply with the Court's Order.

On October, 10, 2000, the Court ordered Plaintiff to complete and file this Court's form for a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for a Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs by November 3, 2000. Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply with the Order within the prescribed time would result in the dismissal of his action (Doc. 2). The Order was mailed to Plaintiff at Easterling Correctional Facility, P.O. Box 10, Clio, Alabama 36017, his last known address. The Court's Order dated October 10 2000, has not been returned to the Court, nor has the Court, to date, heard from Plaintiff since this Order was entered. The Court finds that Plaintiff has abandoned prosecution of this action.

Due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and upon consideration of the alternatives that are available to the Court, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as no other lesser sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (interpreting Rule 41(b) not to restrict the court's inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte an action for lack of prosecution); World Thrust Films, Inc. v. International Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454, 1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, Ballard v. Volunteers of America, 493 U.S. 1084, 110 S.Ct. 1145, 107 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1990); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983). accord Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (ruling that the federal courts' inherent power to manage their own proceedings authorized the imposition of attorney's fees and related expenses as a sanction);Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545-46 (11th Cir. 1993),cert. denied, 510 U.S. 683, 114 S.Ct. 181, 126 L.Ed.2d 140 (1993) (finding that the court's inherent power to manage proceedings before it permitted the imposition of fines)


Summaries of

Headrick v. Alabama Department of Corrections

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
Dec 7, 2000
Civil Action No. 00-0866-BH-M (S.D. Ala. Dec. 7, 2000)
Case details for

Headrick v. Alabama Department of Corrections

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM R. HEADRICK, Plaintiff, v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division

Date published: Dec 7, 2000

Citations

Civil Action No. 00-0866-BH-M (S.D. Ala. Dec. 7, 2000)