Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-817-MHT [WO]
01-13-2015
TIMOTHY LEE ROBINSON, #286 013, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER C. HUNTER, Defendant.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On December 15, 2015, the court directed Plaintiff to show cause on or before December 28, 2015, why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to forward to the Clerk of Court an initial partial filing fee in the amount of $8.00 as directed by order entered November 5, 2015. Doc. No. 4. The order informed Plaintiff to advise 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 simply had chosen not to submit the filing fee, or whether he was unable to comply at this time with the order directing payment of the initial partial filing fee. Id. Plaintiff was also cautioned that his failure to comply with the December 15 order would result in a Recommendation that his complaint be dismissed. 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 December 15, 2015, order to show cause. Consequently, the court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action and comply with the orders of the court.
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action and comply with the orders of this court.
It is further
ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said Recommendation on or before January 27, 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 13th day of January, 2015.
/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.
WALLACE CAPEL, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE