United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES S. COODY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Curtis Harris initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
challenging conditions at the Montgomery County Detention
Facility. Upon receipt of this case, the court entered an
order of procedure requiring that the defendants respond to
the complaint. Doc. 3. The Clerk mailed a copy of this order
to Harris at the last address he provided for
service.The postal service returned this order as
undeliverable because Harris no longer resided at the
Montgomery County Detention Facility.
on the returned mail, the court entered an order requiring
Harris to inform the court of his current address on or
before January 28, 2019. Doc. 10. This order
“specifically cautioned [Harris] that if he fails to
respond to this order the Magistrate Judge will recommend
that this case be dismissed due to his failure to keep the
court apprised of his current address and because, in the
absence of such, this case cannot proceed before this court
in an appropriate manner.” Doc. 10. As of the present
date, the court has received no response from Harris to the
aforementioned order nor has he provided the court with his
current address as is necessary to proceed in this case. The
court therefore concludes that this case should be dismissed.
court has reviewed the file to determine whether a less
drastic measure than dismissal is appropriate. See
Abreu-Velez v. Board of Regents of Unv. 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, the
administration of this case cannot properly proceed in the
plaintiff's absence. It likewise appears that since his
release from the Montgomery County Detention Facility Harris
is no longer interested in the prosecution of this case as he
has not contacted the court. Finally, it appears that any
additional effort by this court to secure Harris'
compliance would be unavailing and a waste of this
court's scarce judicial resources. Consequently, the
undersigned 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). This authority
empowers the courts “to manage their own affairs so as
to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases.” Id. at 630-31; Mingo v. Sugar Cane
Growers Co-Op of Fla., 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir.
1989) (holding that a “district court possesses the
inherent power to police its docket.”). “The
sanctions imposed [upon dilatory litigants] can range from a
simple reprimand to an order dismissing the action with or
without prejudice.” Id.
above stated reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the
Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without
prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to provide the court
with a current address.
before February 19, 2019, Plaintiff may file
objections to the Recommendation. Any objections filed must
specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate
Judge's Recommendation to which he objects. Frivolous,
conclusive or general objections will not be considered by
the District Court. Plaintiff is advised that this
Recommendation is not a final order of the court and,
therefore, it is not appealable.
to file written objections 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 factual findings and legal issues covered
in the report and shall “waive the right to challenge
on appeal the district court's order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except
upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of
justice. 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
The last address provided to the court
by Harris is the Montgomery County Detention