United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
RUSS WALKER SUSAN RUSS WALKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Ray Campbell, an indigent inmate, initiated this 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 civil rights action on September 20, 2016. In the
instant complaint, Campbell challenges conditions at the
Covington County Jail. Doc. 1 at 2-3.
order of procedure entered on September 21, 2016 instructed
Campbell to inform the court immediately of any new address.
Doc. 4 at 5, ¶7(h) (“If plaintiff moves to a
different institution or is released, he must immediately
inform the court and the defendants of his new
address.”). The docket reflects that Campbell received
a copy of this order. However, the postal service returned as
undeliverable an order entered on June 5, 2018 in a separate
case that Campbell filed with this court, Campbell v.
Meeks, et al., Civil Action No. 2:18-CV-432-MHT-SRW,
because Campbell no longer resided at the last address he
provided to the court.
on the foregoing, the court entered an order requiring
Campbell to inform the court of his current address on or
before June 25, 2018. Doc. 43. The order noted “this
case cannot properly proceed … if [the
plaintiff's] whereabouts remain unknown … [and
directed the plaintiff to] 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.” Doc. 43. Finally, the court
“specifically cautioned [Campbell] that if he fails to
respond to this order the Magistrate Judge will recommend
that this case be dismissed.” Doc. 43. As of the
present date, Campbell has failed to provide the court with
his current address pursuant to the orders entered in this
case. Under these circumstances, dismissal of this case is
accordance with Eleventh Circuit law, the court has reviewed
the file to determine whether a less drastic measure than
dismissal is appropriate. See Abreu-Velez v. Board of
Regents of Univ. System of Georgia, 248 Fed.Appx. 116,
117-18 (11th Cir. 2007). After this review, the court finds
that dismissal of this case is the proper course of action.
Campbell is indigent, and the imposition of monetary or other
punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual.
Moreover, Campbell has failed to comply with the orders
entered by this court regarding provision of a current
address. It likewise appears that Campbell is simply no
longer interested in the prosecution of this case, and any
additional effort to secure his compliance would be
unavailing and a waste of this court's scarce resources.
Finally, as previously stated, this case cannot properly
proceed when Campbell's whereabouts are unknown.
the court concludes that this case is due to be dismissed.
See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.
1989) (holding that, as a general rule, where a litigant has
been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order
is not an abuse of discretion.). The authority of courts to
impose sanctions for failure to prosecute or obey an order is
longstanding and acknowledged by Rule 41(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash R.R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962). “The district
court possesses the inherent power to police its
docket.” Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op of
Fla., 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989). This authority
empowers the courts “to manage their own affairs so as
to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases.” Link, 370 U.S. at 630-31. “The
sanctions imposed [upon dilatory litigants] can range from a
simple reprimand to an order dismissing the action with or
without prejudice.” Mingo, 864 F.2d at 102.
above stated reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the
Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without
before July 13, 2018 the parties may file
objections to the Recommendation. A party must specifically
identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the
Recommendation to which the objection is made. Frivolous,
conclusive, or general objections to the Recommendation will
not be considered.
to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge's
findings and recommendations in accordance with the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party
from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal
and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives
the right of the party to challenge on appeal the District
Court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal
conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except
upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. 11TH Cir.