United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
DRELIJAH J. MUHAMMAD, Petitioner,
RAY NORRIS, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
F. BIVINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Drelijah J. Muhammad filed a petition ostensibly seeking relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). This case was referred
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. Ala. GenLR (72(a)(2)(R) for
appropriate action. Because Muhammad has failed to prosecute
and to comply with the Court's Orders dated April 24,
2018 (doc. 2), May 21, 2018 (doc. 7), and June 13, 2018 (doc.
9), it is recommended that this action be
dismissed without prejudice.
filed his petition on March 30, 2018, while incarcerated at
the Clarke County Jail. (Doc. 1). A review of Muhammad's
petition reflects that it is not on the form required by this
Court for actions arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Further, a review of the docket reflects that, at the time
Muhammad filed this action, he did not pay the $5.00
statutory filing fee, nor did he file a motion to proceed
without prepayment of fees. Accordingly, in an order dated
April 24, 2018, the Court directed Muhammad to re-file his
complaint on the Court's form for actions arising under
28 U.S.C. § 2241, and to pay the statutory filing fee or
file a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees by May
21, 2018. (Doc. 2).
17, 2018, Muhammad's copy of the Court's order dated
April 24, 2018 was returned as undeliverable; however, in the
interim, he paid the $5.00 filing fee on May 3, 2018. (Docs.
3, 6). Further, prior to the return of Muhammad's copy of
the Court's order dated April 24, 2018, he advised the
Court that he had been transferred from the Clarke County
Jail to a new institution, Kilby Correctional Facility. (Doc.
5). Accordingly, on May 21, 2018, the Court issued an order
again directing Muhammad to refile his petition on the form
required by the Court for actions arising under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. (Doc. 7). Although the May 21st order was
addressed to Muhammad at the last address he provided, it was
returned to the Court as undeliverable on June 12, 2018.
(Doc. 8). A search of the website for the Alabama Department
of Corrections revealed that Muhammad had again been
transferred to a new institution, namely Bibb County
Correctional Center. However, Muhammad neglected to advise
the Court of the change in his address. Thus, on June 13,
2018, the Court issued a third order once again directing
Muhammad to re-file his complaint on the form required by
this Court for actions arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Muhammad was directed to comply with the Court's order no
later than July 13, 2018, and was cautioned that failure to
do so would result in the dismissal of his action. (Doc. 9).
Muhammad has not re-filed his petition as directed, and his
copy of the order dated June 13, 2018, which was mailed to
him at the Bibb County Facility, has not been returned as
due to Muhammad's failure to comply with the Court's
orders dated April 24, 2018 (doc. 2), May 21, 2018 (doc. 7),
and June 13, 2018 (doc. 9), and upon consideration of the
alternatives available to the Court, it is recommended that
this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule
41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as no other
lesser sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R. R.,
370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962)
(interpreting Rule 41(b) not to restrict the court's
inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte an action
for lack of prosecution); World Thrust Films, Inc. v.
International Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454,
1456-57 (11th Cir. 1995); Ballard v. Carlson, 882
F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, Ballard
v. Volunteers of America, 493 U.S. 1084, 110 S.Ct. 1145,
107 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1990); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers
Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Goforth
v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1983);
Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir.
1983); accord Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32,
111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (ruling that federal
courts' inherent power to manage their own proceedings
authorized the imposition of attorney's fees and related
expenses as a sanction; Malautea v. Suzuki Motor
Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545-46 (11th Cir. 1993)(finding
that the court's inherent power to manage actions before
it permitted the imposition of fines), cert. denied,
510 U.S. 863, 114 S.Ct. 181, 126 L.Ed.2d 140 (1993).
instructions which follow the undersigned's signature
contain important information regarding objections to the
report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
of Right to File Objections
of this report and recommendation shall be served on all
parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects
to this recommendation or anything in it must, within
fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document,
file specific written objections with the Clerk of this
Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b); S.D. ALA. GenLR 72(c). The parties should note that
under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to
object to a magistrate judge's findings or
recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
waives the right to challenge on appeal the district
court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal
conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for
objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to
object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the
court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in
the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
In order to be specific, an objection must identify the
specific finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the
place in the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation
where the disputed determination is found. An objection that
merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing
before the Magistrate Judge is not specific.
 Petitioner, a frequent litigant before
this Court, utilizes a variety of aliases. However, the
Alabama Department of Corrections lists Petitioner's
legal name as Marcus Taite, AIS No. 180664.
 The basis for Muhammad's petition
is unclear, as the petition consists of twenty (20) pages of
rambling assertions, along with a thirteen (13) page
supplement, most of which is near impossible to decipher.
However, within the petition, Muhammad mentions 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2241 and 2254. (See Doc. 1 at 2). Because it
does not appear that Muhammad is seeking post-conviction
relief from a state court conviction, § 2254 would not