Webb v. Dunn

Full title: JIMMY LEE WEBB, #137198, Plaintiff, v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, et al.…

Court: DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Dec 16, 2015

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-654-WKW (M.D. Ala. Dec. 16, 2015)

Opinion

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-654-WKW

12-16-2015

JIMMY LEE WEBB, #137198, Plaintiff, v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, et al., Defendants.

Gray M. Borden UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The plaintiff, an indigent state inmate, initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on September 11, 2015. Subsequently, and prior to the defendants filing a response to the complaint, the plaintiff filed a "Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice" in which he seeks to dismiss this case. See Doc. 16.

Upon consideration of the plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the court concludes that the motion is due to be granted.¹ Furthermore, since the defendants have filed no responsive pleading addressing the claims raised in the complaint, the court discerns that this case should be dismissed without prejudice. See Rule 41(a)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

1 Contrary to the plaintiff's assertion regarding the tendencies of this court, this court is sympathetic to the plight of prison inmates and commonly addresses conditions and other claims raised by pro se inmates, including claims presented in several cases filed by the plaintiff. The court dismissed the claims challenging unsanitary conditions and inadequate medical care presented in this case only after providing the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint regarding these claims, which he failed to do. --------

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. The plaintiff's motion to dismiss be GRANTED.

2. This case be DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is further ORDERED that on or before December 30, 2015 the parties may file objections to this Recommendation. A party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which the 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 (5^th Cir. 1982); 11^TH CIR. R. 3-1; see Stein v. Lanning Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11^th Cir. 1982); Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11^th Cir. 1981) (en banc).

DONE this 16th day of December, 2015.

/s/ Gray M. Borden

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE