Tartt v. Middlebrooks

Full title: KERI TYWARREN TARTT, Petitioner, v. SCOTT A. MIDDLEBROOKS, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Panama City Division

Date published: Jul 14, 2008

Case No. 5:08cv125/MCR/EMT (N.D. Fla. Jul. 14, 2008)

Opinion

Case No. 5:08cv125/MCR/EMT.

July 14, 2008

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ELIZABETH TIMOTHY, Magistrate Judge

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Petitioner commenced this action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus and paying the filing fee (Docs. 1, 4). Petitioner subsequently filed an amended petition (Doc. 6). On May 13, 2008, this court entered an order (Doc. 7) directing Petitioner to submit two complete copies of his amended petition for service upon Respondent. Petitioner failed to comply with the order; therefore, on June 16, 2008, the court issued an order requiring Petitioner 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. 9). The time for compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed with no response from Petitioner.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Petitioner'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).