Whitlock v. 22nd Judicial Circuit

Full title: KUMOSKI WHITLOCK, Plaintiff, v. 22ND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Nov 24, 2015

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-755-WKW [WO] (M.D. Ala. Nov. 24, 2015)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-755-WKW [WO]

11-24-2015

KUMOSKI WHITLOCK, Plaintiff, v. 22ND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, et al., Defendants.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On October 19, 2012 the court entered an order granting Plaintiff fourteen days to file an amended complaint. Doc. No. 4. Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the court's October 19 order would result in a Recommendation that his complaint be dismissed. Id. The requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has not complied with the order of the court. 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 December 8, 2015. 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 24th day of November, 2015.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE