Garrett
v.
Cochran

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISIONFeb 2, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-558-MHT [WO] (M.D. Ala. Feb. 2, 2017)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-558-MHT [WO]

02-02-2017

CHRISTOPHER J. GARRETT, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER CHRISTOPHER COCHRAN, Defendant.


RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on July 8, 2016. On July 15, 2016, the court directed Defendant to file an answer and written report addressing Plaintiff's claims for relief. In compliance with the court's order, Defendant submitted an answer on September 1, 2016, and a written report on September 2, 2016, which contained relevant evidentiary materials addressing the allegations in the complaint. Docs. 15, 16. Upon review of this report, the court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendant's answer and written report. Doc. 19. The order advised Plaintiff that his failure to respond to the report 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." Id. at 1. The order "specifically cautioned [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. Id.

The time allotted Plaintiff for filing a response in compliance with the court's September 20, 2016, order, as extended by order of October 7, 2016, expired on November 1, 2016. As of the present date, Plaintiff has failed to file a response in opposition to Defendant's written report. The court, therefore, concludes this case should be dismissed.

The court has reviewed the file to determine whether a drastic measure less than dismissal is appropriate. After such review, dismissal is the proper course of action. Plaintiff is an indigent individual. The imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual. Plaintiff's inaction in the face of Defendant's report and evidentiary materials refuting the claims raised suggests he does not seek to proceed with this case. It, therefore, appears that any additional effort by this court to secure his compliance would be unavailing. Consequently, the court concludes that Plaintiff's abandonment of his claims and his failure to comply with an order of this court warrant dismissal. 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.); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232 Fed.Appx. 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate's § 1983 action for failure to file an amendment to complaint in compliance with court's prior order directing amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply).

For the above stated reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. It is further

It is further

ORDERED that on or before February 16, 2017, the parties may file an objection to this Recommendation. A party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered.

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 2nd day of February, 2017.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker


Susan Russ Walker


Chief United States Magistrate Judge