From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walker v. Jones

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
Apr 30, 2001
Civil Action 01-0029-BH-S (S.D. Ala. Apr. 30, 2001)

Opinion

Civil Action 01-0029-BH-S

April 30, 2001


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action, which has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4), is before the Court for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and to obey the Court's order.

Upon review of Plaintiff's action, the Court found that the complaint and Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs were on outdated forms. Thereupon, the Court ordered Plaintiff by February 26, 2001, to complete and file this Court's new form for a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees. Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply with the Court's order within the prescribed time would result in the dismissal without prejudice of this action for failure to prosecute and to obey the Court's order. Plaintiff has not responded in any manner to the Court's order, nor is there any indication that Plaintiff did not receive a copy of the Court's order.

Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's order, and upon consideration other available alternatives, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute and to obey the Court's order, as no other lesser sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R. R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388-89, 8 L.Ed.2d 734, 738 (1962) (interpreting Rule 41(b) not to restrict the court's inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte an action for lack of prosecution); World Thrust Films. Inc. v. International Family Entertainment. Inc., 41 F.3d 1454, 1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied. Ballard v. Volunteers of America, 493 U.S. 1084, 110 S.Ct. 1145, 107 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1990); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1993). Accord Chambers v. NASCO. Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (ruling that federal courts' inherent power to manage their own proceedings authorized the imposition of attorney's fees and related expenses as a sanction);Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545-46 (11th Cir. 1993) (finding that the court's inherent power to manage actions before it permitted the imposition of fines), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 863, 114 S.Ct. 181, 126 L.Ed.2d 140 (1993).

The attached sheet contains important information regarding objections to this Report and Recommendation.


Summaries of

Walker v. Jones

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
Apr 30, 2001
Civil Action 01-0029-BH-S (S.D. Ala. Apr. 30, 2001)
Case details for

Walker v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:JIM D. WALKER, Plaintiff, v. CHARLIE JONES, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division

Date published: Apr 30, 2001

Citations

Civil Action 01-0029-BH-S (S.D. Ala. Apr. 30, 2001)