Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Smith v. Thomas

United States District Court, Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division

July 16, 2014

JAMES LARRY PAYNE SMITH, #278572, Plaintiff,
v.
KIM TOBIAS THOMAS, et al., Defendants.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SUSAN RUSS WALKER CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

James Larry Payne Smith ("Smith"), a state inmate, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action asserting violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights stemming from alleged systemic deficiencies at the Ventress Correctional Facility. However, upon initiation of this case, Smith did not file the $350 filing fee and $50 administrative fee applicable when a plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis, nor did he submit an original affidavit in support of a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by the required documentation from the inmate account clerk. Thus, the court did not have the information necessary to determine whether Smith should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this case and therefore entered an order requiring that Smith provide the court with this information on or before July 7, 2014. Order of June 11, 2014 - Doc. No. 3 at 1-2. The court specifically cautioned Smith that failure to comply with this order would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. at 2.

As of the present date, Smith has filed nothing in response to the aforementioned order. The court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed.

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for Smith's failure to file the requisite fees or provide the court with financial information in compliance with the order of this court. It is further

ORDERED that on or before July 30, 2014, the parties may file objections to the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the 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); Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); 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).


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.