Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-772-MHT [WO]
12-18-2015
HARRY JOSEPH, Plaintiff, v. MICKEY POWELL, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was filed by Plaintiff on October 21, 2015. On October 27, 2015, the court entered an order of procedure which instructed Plaintiff, among other things, to inform the court of any change in his address. Doc. No. 4. The order also cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply with this specific directive would result in a Recommendation that his case be dismissed. Id.
On December 7, 2015, Plaintiff's copies of court orders entered November 24, 2015, were returned to the court marked as undeliverable because Plaintiff was no longer at the most recent address he provided to the court when he filed this action. Consequently, a show cause order was entered on December 9, 2105, directing Plaintiff to provide the court with his present address. Doc. No. 14. Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the court's December 9, 2015, order would result in a Recommendation this case be dismissed. Id. On December 16, 2015, the envelope containing Plaintiff's copy of the court's December 9 show cause order was returned to the court marked as undeliverable. As it appears clear that Plaintiff is no longer residing at the most recent service address he provided to the court and that he has not provided this court with a new service address, the undersigned concludes that dismissal of the complaint at this juncture is appropriate.
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action properly and to comply with the orders of this court.
Further, it is
ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said Recommendation on or before January 4, 2016. A party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which 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 (5th Cir. 1982); 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Stein v. Lanning 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). The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.
Done this 18th day of December, 2015.
/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.
WALLACE CAPEL, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE