United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TERRY F. MOORER, Magistrate Judge.
Barry Trimble ["Trimble"], an indigent inmate, initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging alleged limitations on use of the Native American grounds at the Easterling Correctional Facility. The order of procedure entered in this case specifically directed Trimble to immediately inform the court of any change in his address. Order of May 25, 2011 - Doc. No. 4 at 4.
In mid-2013, the court ascertained that Trimble is no longer at the last address he provided for service and therefore issued an order requiring that he inform the court of his current address. Order of May 29, 2013 - Doc. No. 30. This order specifically advised Trimble 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 court has received no response from Trimble to the aforementioned order nor has he provided the court with his current address.
As is clear from the foregoing, Trimble has failed to comply with the directives of the orders issued by this court. In addition, this case cannot properly proceed in his absence. It likewise appears that Trimble is no longer interested in the prosecution of this case. Thus, the court concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. See 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 an amended complaint 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 September 17, 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, ...