From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stacey v. Fountain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Apr 6, 2021
CIVIL ACTION 19-0373-KD-MU (S.D. Ala. Apr. 6, 2021)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION 19-0373-KD-MU

04-06-2021

MARCUS W. STACEY, Plaintiff, v. LT. FOUNTAIN, et al., Defendants.


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action was filed by an Alabama state inmate and has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2 (c)(4) for appropriate action. It is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and to comply with the Court's order.

On August 7, 2020, Defendants filed their Answer and Special Report (Docs. 33, 34). An order converting the answer and special report to a Motion for Summary Judgment was entered by the Court on January 22, 2021 (Doc. 38). In addition, the Court ordered Plaintiff to inform the Court by February 12, 2021, in writing, if he desired to continue the litigation of this action. Plaintiff was also advised that failure to respond by February 12, 2021, would be considered an abandonment of the prosecution of this case by Plaintiff and the case would be dismissed. As of this date, the Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's order.

Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's order and to prosecute this action, and upon consideration of the alternatives that are available to the Court, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as no other lesser sanction will suffice. See Link v. Wabash R. R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (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. 1983); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983). Accord Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (ruling that the 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); Blunt v. U. S. Tobacco Co., 856 F.2d 192 (6th Cir. 1988)(unpublished) (affirming district court's dismissal of pro se plaintiff's action for failure to prosecute when plaintiff failed to respond to the summary judgment notice or to show cause why the action should not be dismissed).

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in it must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b); S.D.ALA. L.R. 72.4. The parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit precedent, "the failure to object limits the scope of [] appellate review to plain error review of the magistrate judge's factual findings." Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2013) (emphasis in original). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific.

DONE this 6th day of April, 2021.

s/ P. BRADLEY MURRAY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Stacey v. Fountain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Apr 6, 2021
CIVIL ACTION 19-0373-KD-MU (S.D. Ala. Apr. 6, 2021)
Case details for

Stacey v. Fountain

Case Details

Full title:MARCUS W. STACEY, Plaintiff, v. LT. FOUNTAIN, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Apr 6, 2021

Citations

CIVIL ACTION 19-0373-KD-MU (S.D. Ala. Apr. 6, 2021)