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.

Files v. Hay

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

July 18, 2014

EARNEST J. FILES, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
STEVE HAY, Defendant.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On May 7, 2014, the court entered an order which notified Plaintiff service of the complaint on Defendant Steve Hay had not been effected because is no longer at the service address provided by Plaintiff. Doc. No. 16. The order advised Plaintiff that if a person had not been served, he/she was not a party to this lawsuit except in very unusual circumstances. Plaintiff was, therefore, directed to furnish the Clerk’s Office with a correct address for Defendant Hay. The above-referenced order further advised Plaintiff that the court would not continue to monitor this case to ensure that the defendant(s) Plaintiff wished to sue had been served. Plaintiff was informed that this was his responsibility. The order also informed Plaintiff that if he failed to comply with the court’s directives, the individual mentioned above would not be served, and he would not be considered a party to this action.

Plaintiff has filed no response to the court's May 7 order. Because Defendant Hay is the only remaining defendant to this cause of action, the court concludes that dismissal of this action is appropriate.

In light of the foregoing, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that the instant complaint be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the order of this court that he provide an address for Defendant Hay, the only defendant remaining in this case, and the resulting failure to effect service of the complaint on this individual. It is further ORDERED that on or before August 1, 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). 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.


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.