Talley v. U.S.

Full title: VIRGIL TALLEY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division

Date published: Oct 2, 2007

Case No.: 3:07cv246/RV/EMT (N.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2007)

Opinion

Case No.: 3:07cv246/RV/EMT.

October 2, 2007

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ELIZABETH TIMOTHY, Magistrate Judge

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). On July 23, 2007, Plaintiff was given until August 12, 2007, to either pay the filing fee or submit a fully completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) ( see Doc. 7 at 2). The court's order was returned without delivery because Plaintiff was no longer housed at the Federal Detention Center in Miami, Florida ( see Doc. 8); therefore, on August 14, 2007, the court extended the time for Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or submit a fully completed IFP motion to September 3, 2007 ( see Doc. 9 at 1 — 2). This order granting Plaintiff an extension was mailed to him at his new address and was not returned without delivery ( see docket entry 9 and remaining docket). Plaintiff failed to respond to the order; therefore, on September 6, 2007, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause, within twenty (20) days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court (Doc. 11). The time for compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed with no response from Plaintiff.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the court.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within ten days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court's internal use only . A copy of objections shall be served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts , 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988).