United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
June 16, 2015
LISA McKINLEY TULLIS, #280307, Plaintiff,
STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES S. COODY, Magistrate Judge.
Lisa McKinley Tullis ("Tullis"), an indigent state inmate incarcerated at the Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women, initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on February 4, 2015. After reviewing the complaint and amendment thereto, the court determined that Tullis should file an amended complaint and issued an order containing detailed instructions with respect to filing of the amended complaint. Order of April 13, 2015 - Doc. No. 29. In so doing, the court noted that prior to filing this case Tullis had filed several other civil actions in which she "presents the same claims against several of the defendants listed in the present complaint" and advised Tullis that "this case should proceed only on those claims which are not before the court in other complaints." Id. at 1. The court " advised [Tullis] that this case will proceed only on the amended complaint " and cautioned Tullis that her failure to comply with the directives of this order would result in a Recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id. at 2-3 (emphasis in original). In an effort to aid Tullis in filing the necessary amended complaint, the court "provide[d] her with a copy of the form used by prisoners to file complaints." Id. at 2.
The time allowed Tullis to file the amended complaint expired on May 11, 2015. Order of May 4, 2015 - Doc. No. 32. As of the present date, Tullis has failed to file the amended complaint as required by this court. In light of Tullis' failure to file the necessary amended complaint, the court concludes that this case should be dismissed. Tanner v. Neal, 232 Fed.App'x 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, noting that inmate was provided with "a standard form [and] a clear description of what [the] complaint should contain."); 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.).
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to file an amended complaint as directed by the order of this court. It is further
ORDERED that on or before June 30, 2015 the parties may file objections to the Recommendation. Any objection must specifically identify the findings in the Recommendation objected to. 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 in the Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the 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 decisions of the former Fifth Circuit issued prior to September 30, 1981.