Lanier v. Henline (INMATE 2)

• Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama
• Decided: November 19, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00556
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

JOSEPH KEENAN LANIER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-556-ECM-SRW ) [WO] WARDEN HENLINE, ) ) Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on August 3, 2020. On August 14, 2020, the court entered an order directing Defendant to file an answer and written report to the complaint. 6. The order directed Plaintiff to “immediately inform the court and Defendant or Defendant’s counsel of record of any change in his address.” Doc. 6 at 3, ¶8. The order also advised Plaintiff that “[f]ailure 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.” Id. On October 6, 2020, Plaintiff’s copy of an order entered September 16, 2020, was returned to the court marked as undeliverable because Plaintiff is no longer housed at the last service address he provided. Accordingly, the court entered an order on October 7, 2020, requiring that by October 19, 2020, Plaintiff file with the court a current address or show cause why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to adequately prosecute this action. Doc. 15. This order specifically advised Plaintiff this case could not 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. Id. Plaintiff’s copy of the October 7, 2020, order was returned to the court on November 2, 2020, marked as undeliverable. The foregoing reflects Plaintiff’s lack of interest in the continued prosecution of this case. This action cannot proceed properly in Plaintiff’s absence. The court, therefore, concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.).

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. It is ORDERED that on or before December 4, 2020, the parties may file an objection to the Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. This Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable. Failure 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); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989). DONE on this the 19th day of November, 2020. /s/ Susan Russ Walker Susan Russ Walker United States Magistrate Judge