United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Eastern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES S. COODY, Magistrate Judge.
This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a complaint filed by Thomas Franklin May, III ["May"], an indigent inmate. In the complaint, May challenges actions taken against him during his confinement at the Lee County Detention Center. The order of procedure entered in this case specifically directed May to immediately inform the court of any change in his address. Order of June 4, 2012 - Doc. No. 4 at 5-6.
Based on information obtained by the court, it appeared that May was not at the last address he had provided for service. In light of the foregoing, the court entered an order requiring "that on or before July 24, 2014 the plaintiff... show cause why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the orders of this court and his failure to adequately prosecute this action." Order of July 14, 2014 - Doc. No. 102. The order specifically advised May that this case could not proceed if his whereabouts remained unknown and cautioned him that his failure to comply with its directives would result in a Recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. The postal service returned this order to the court as undeliverable. In addition, as of the present date, May has not provided the court with his current address as required by the order of procedure.
In light of the foregoing, it is clear that May has failed to comply with the directives of the orders entered by this court. This case cannot properly proceed in his absence. The court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232 Fed.Appx. 924 (11th Cir.2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate's § 1983 action for failure to file a response in compliance with court's prior order directing amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply).
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to comply with the orders of this court.
It is further
ORDERED that on or before August 11, 2014 the parties may file objections to the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. 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 advisements in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation 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, ...