Opinion
NO. 5:15-CV-263-MTT-MSH
05-09-2016
JAMES D. WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. JACKSON CORRECTION FACILITY, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff James D. Wright, a prisoner formerly confined at Wheeler Correctional Facility in Alamo, Georgia, filed a pro se civil rights complaint in this Court seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) In an Order dated February 19, 2016, Plaintiff was ordered to either provide additional information to effectuate service of the only remaining Defendant, Defendant Christina Farrell, or to independently secure service of process on Defendant Farrell within twenty-one (21) days of the date of that Order. (ECF No. 18.) After the Plaintiff failed to respond to the Order, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause. Order 1-2, April 4, 2016, ECF No. 21. Plaintiff has failed to timely comply with the Court's Show Cause Order and has failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address. Consequently, the Court recommends dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Betty K. Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that a court may sua sponte dismiss an action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(b)); Smith v. Bruster, 424 F. App'x 912, 914 (11th Cir. 2011) ("[T]he district court may sua sponte dismiss an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) if the plaintiff fails to comply with court rules or a court order.").
On March 3, 2016, the Court's Order directing Plaintiff to provide additional information to effectuate service on Defendant Farrell was returned from Plaintiff's last known address as undeliverable. (ECF No. 19.) --------
It is thus recommended that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with a court order. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to this Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to file objections, within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy hereof. The district judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. All other portions of the Recommendation may be reviewed for clear error.
The parties are hereby notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, "[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice."
SO RECOMMENDED, this 9th day of May, 2016.
/s/ Stephen Hyles
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE