United States District Court, Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SUSAN RUSS WALKER CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, 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, Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis and, therefore, entered an order requiring he provide the court with this information on or before July 2, 2014. Order of June 11, 2014 - Doc. No. 3 at 1-2. The court specifically cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply with this order would result in a recommendation this case be dismissed. Id. at 2.
As of the present date, Plaintiff has filed nothing in response to the aforementioned order. The court, therefore, concludes this case is due to be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff'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, Plaintiff may file an objection to the Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is 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); 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) ...