United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Eastern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WALLACE CAPEL, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Charley Moon, an indigent inmate, initiated the instant 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action on March 23, 2018. In this civil
action, Moon challenges the constitutionality of medical
treatment provided to him at the Russell County Jail in March
of 2018. Doc. 1 at 1-6.
order of procedure entered on March 26, 2018, instructed Moon
to immediately inform the court of any new address. Doc. 4 at
4, ¶7 (“The plaintiff shall immediately inform the
court and the defendants or, if counsel has appeared on
behalf of the defendants, counsel of record of any change in
his address. Failure to provide a correct address to this
court within ten (10) days following any change of address
will result in the dismissal of this action.”). The
docket indicates Moon received a copy of this order. However,
the postal service returned as undeliverable an order entered
on August 9, 2019 (Doc. 34) because Moon no longer resided at
the last address he had provided to the court for
service.This order directed Moon to advise the
court of his current address on or before August 29, 2019. As
of the present date, Moon has failed to provide the court
with his current address pursuant to the directives of the
orders entered 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 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, the court
notes that Moon is an indigent individual and the imposition
of monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be
ineffectual. Moreover, Moon has failed to comply with the
directives of the orders entered by this court regarding
provision of a current address. It likewise appears that Moon
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, this case cannot properly proceed when
Moon's whereabouts are unknown.
the court concludes that Moon's failure to comply with
the orders of this court warrant dismissal of this case.
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. It is further
that the Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file any objections to the
said Recommendation on or before September 20,
2019. Any objections filed must specifically
identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's
Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous,
conclusive, or general objections will not be considered by
the District Court. The Plaintiff is advised that this
Recommendation is not a final order of the court and,
therefore, it is not appealable.
to file a written objection 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) (“When the magistrate provides such notice and a
party still fails to object to the findings of fact and those
findings are adopted by the district court the party may not
challenge them on appeal in the absence of plain error or
manifest injustice.”); Henley v. Johnson, 885
F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).
The last address provided by Moon was
the Russell County Jail. The court undertook a search of the
inmate database maintained by the Alabama Department of
Corrections at www.doc.state.al.us/inmatesearch to determine
whether Moon no longer resided at the Russell County Jail due
to a transfer to the state prison system. This review