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

PRINCE SAYON LENARD MOORE ) SCOTT, #279 776, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-720-ALB ) [WO] OFFICER LANDRUM, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Kilby Correctional Facility filed this action on September 27, 2019, under

. Plaintiff filed an affidavit in support of a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 2. The motion, however did not include the required documentation from the inmate account clerk. The court, therefore, did not have the information necessary to determine whether Plaintiff should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this case and entered an order on October 10, 2019, requiring Plaintiff to provide the court with this information on or before October 24, 2019. Doc. 3 at 1–2. The court specifically cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the October 10 order would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed.

. The requisite time has passed and Plaintiff has not complied with the court’s October 10, 2019, order. The court, therefore, concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. Moon v. Newsome,

(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,

(11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate's § 1983 action for failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with court's prior order directing amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply). Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to comply with the order of the court and to

prosecute this action. It is further ORDERED that on or before December 3, 2019, Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff 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 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.,

(11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson,

(11th Cir. 1989). Done, this 19th day of November 2019.

/s/ Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE