United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TERRY F. MOORER, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, a state inmate, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which he asserts violations of his constitutional rights stemming from conditions of confinement at the Decatur Work Release Facility and alleged systematic deficiencies in the operation of the work release program. He also challenges the constitutionality of the Alabama Constitution. 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 August 28, 2014. Order of August 14, 2014 - Doc. No. 3 at 1-2. Plaintiff's copy of this order was returned to the court marked as undeliverable on August 25, 2014.
All parties have an affirmative duty to inform the court of any change of address during the pendency of their cases. On August 28, 2014, the undersigned directed Plaintiff to provide the court with his present address on or before September 11, 2014. Doc. No. 5. Plaintiff was cautioned his failure to comply with the court's August 28 order would result in a recommendation that this complaint be dismissed. Id. Plaintiff has filed no response. As it appears clear Plaintiff is no longer residing at the service address he provided to the court upon initiation of this action and has not provided this court with a new address for service, the undersigned concludes that dismissal is appropriate.
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action and to comply with the orders of this court.
It is further
ORDERED that on or before October 21, 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 ...