United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SUSAN
RUSS WALKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a
complaint filed by LaCorrey Jovon Russell, an indigent state
inmate. In the instant complaint, Russell alleges that the
defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his safety
by failing to protect him from an attack by other inmates on
May 15, 2017. Doc. 1 at 3. Russell also challenges the
conditions of his confinement. Doc. 1-1 at 1-2.
Pursuant
to the orders of this court, the defendants filed a special
report and supplemental special reports supported by relevant
evidentiary materials, including affidavits and institutional
records, in which they address the claims for relief
presented by Russell. These materials appear to demonstrate
that the defendants did not act with deliberate indifference
to Russell's safety and that the conditions about which
Russell complains do not violate the Eighth Amendment.
In
light of the foregoing, the court issued an order directing
Russell to file a response to the defendants' written
reports. Doc. 48. The order advised Russell that his failure
to respond to the reports would be treated by the court
“as an abandonment of the claims set forth in
the complaint and as a failure to prosecute this
action.” Doc. 48 at 1 (emphasis in original).
Additionally, the order “specifically cautioned
[the plaintiff] that [his failure] to file a response in
compliance with the directives of this order”
would result in the dismissal of this civil action. Doc. 48
at 1 (emphasis in original). The time allotted Russell for
filing a response in compliance with this order expired on
February 25, 2019. As of the present date, Russell has failed
to file a requisite response in opposition to the
defendant's written report. The court therefore concludes
that this case should be dismissed.
The
court has reviewed the file to determine whether a less
drastic measure than dismissal is appropriate. After such
review, it is clear that dismissal of this case is the proper
course of action at this time. In sum, Russell is an indigent
individual currently incarcerated in the Alabama prison
system. Thus, the imposition of monetary or other punitive
sanctions against him would be ineffectual. Additionally,
Russell's inaction in the face of the defendant's
reports and evidence suggests a loss of interest in the
continued prosecution of this case. Finally, the evidentiary
materials submitted by the defendants, which are at this
point undisputed by the plaintiff, demonstrate that no
violation of the Constitution occurred. It therefore appears
that any additional effort by this court to secure
Russell's compliance would be unavailing and a waste of
this court's scarce judicial resources. Consequently, the
court concludes that Russell's abandonment of his claims
and his failure to comply with an order of this court warrant
dismissal. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837
(11th Cir. 1989) (holding that, generally, 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.
For the
above stated reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the
Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed without
prejudice.
On or
before April 16, 2019, 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. Failure to file written objections to the
Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations in
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ยง 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 ...