Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-107-WHA
12-11-2015
JACKIE DARRELL LONG, Plaintiff, v. DENNIS MEEKS, Defendant.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a complaint filed by Jackie Darrell Long ("Long"), an indigent inmate. In the complaint, Long challenges conditions to which he was subjected during his confinement at the Covington County Jail. The order of procedure entered in this case specifically directed Long to inform the court immediately of any change in his address. Order of April 14, 2014 - Doc. No. 10 at 6.
The court recently issued an order which was mailed to Long. The postal service returned this order because Long no longer resided at the address he had last provided to the court. In light of the foregoing, the court entered an order requiring that on or before November 17, 2015, Long inform the court of his present address. Order of November 10, 2015 - Doc. No. 41. This order specifically advised Long that this case could not proceed if his whereabouts remained unknown and cautioned him that his failure to comply with its directives would result in a Recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. Long has filed no response to this order.
As is clear from the foregoing, Long has failed to comply with the orders entered by this court. In addition, this case cannot properly proceed in his absence. It likewise appears that Long is no longer interested in the prosecution of this case. The court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11 Cir.1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232 Fed. Appx. 924 (11 Cir.2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate's § 1983 action for failure to file a response in compliance with court's prior order directing amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply).
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to comply with the orders of this court and his failure to properly prosecute this action.
It is further
ORDERED that on or before December 28, 2015, the parties may file objections to the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which the plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed finding in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation 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 (11 Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11 Cir. 1989).
DONE, this 11th day of December, 2015.
/s/ Susan Russ Walker
SUSAN RUSS WALKER
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE