United States District Court, Middle District of Alabama
May 29, 2014
CHARLES EDWARD BRYANT, #192 830, Plaintiff,
WARDEN III, GARY HETZEL, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was filed by Plaintiff on September 26, 2011. On September 28, 2011, the court entered an order of procedure which instructed Plaintiff, among other things, to inform the court of any change in his address. Doc. No. 4, ¶6(h). The order further informed Plaintiff that his failure to comply with this requirement would result in a Recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id.
It recently came to the court’s attention that Plaintiff is no longer residing at the most recent service address he provided to the court. Consequently, the court entered an order on April 16, 2014, directing Plaintiff to provide the court with his present address for service on or before April 28, 2014. Doc. No. 17. Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the court's April 16 order would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. Plaintiff has filed nothing in response to this order. As it appears clear that Plaintiff is no longer residing at the most recent service address he provided to the court and that he has not provided this court with a new address for service, the undersigned concludes that dismissal of the complaint is appropriate.
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failures to prosecute this action properly and to comply with the orders of this court.
It is further
ORDERED that on or before June 12, 2014, the parties may file an objection to the Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised this Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.
Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar a party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report 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). See Stein v. Reynolds 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), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.