United States District Court, Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SUSAN RUSS WALKER, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On June 25, 2014, the undersigned directed Plaintiff to forward to the court an inmate account statement reflecting the average monthly balances and deposits to his prison account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of this complaint to assist the court in determining whether he should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this cause of action. Doc. No. 5. Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the June 25, 2014, order would result in a Recommendation that his complaint be dismissed. Id. Plaintiff filed nothing in response to the court’s June 25 order. Accordingly, on July 16, 2014, the court directed Plaintiff to show cause why his case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the order of the court regarding the filing of an inmate account statement. Doc. No. 6.
The requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has not provided the court with his inmate account statement nor has he responded to the court’s July 16 order to show cause. Consequently, the court concludes that dismissal of this case is appropriate for Plaintiff’s failures to comply with the orders of the court and to prosecute this action.
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to comply with the orders of this court and to prosecute this action. It is further ORDERED that on or before August 19, 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 ...