United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES S. COODY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Julius Graham, a state inmate incarcerated at the Ventress
Correctional Facility, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action on October 16, 2018. In this complaint, Graham
challenges actions which occurred on November 26, 2017 during
his prior incarceration at the Coffee County Jail.
review of the financial information submitted by Graham, the
court issued an order that he “file a prison account
statement from the account clerk at Ventress showing the
average monthly balance in his prison account for the 6-month
period immediately preceding the filing of this complaint and
the average monthly deposits to his account during the past
six months.” Doc. 3 at 1-2. The Clerk mailed a copy of
this order to Graham at Ventress - the last address he
provided for service. The postal service returned this order
as undeliverable because Graham is not currently confined at
Ventress. Based on the foregoing, the court entered
an order requiring “that on or before December 5, 2018
Graham shall file with the court a current address and/or
show cause why this case should not be dismissed for his
failure to adequately prosecute this action.” Doc. 4.
The order specifically advised Graham that this case could
not properly proceed if his whereabouts remained unknown and
cautioned him that his failure to comply with its directives
would result in the dismissal of this case. Doc. 4. As of the
present date, the court has received no response from Graham
to the aforementioned order nor has he provided the court
with his current address as is necessary to proceed before
this court. Under these circumstances, the court finds that
dismissal of this case is warranted.
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 such review, the court finds
that dismissal of this case is the proper course of action.
Initially, based on the limited financial information
provided by Graham, see Doc. 2, the court finds that
the imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions
against Graham would be ineffectual. It likewise appears that
Graham is no longer interested in the prosecution of this
case due to his release from incarceration and any additional
effort to secure his compliance would be unavailing and a
waste of this court's scarce resources. Finally, this
case cannot properly proceed when Graham's whereabouts
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 December 21, 2018 the plaintiff may
file objections to the Recommendation. The plaintiff 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 the
plaintiff 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. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark
Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993);
Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir.
A search of the inmate database hosted
at www.doc.state.al.us/InmateInfo establishes that
Graham is no longer incarcerated within the custody of the