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

RANDY J. RICHBURG, #240 472, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:19-CV-598-ECM-WC ) [WO] PRISON COMM. JEFFERY DUNN, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed this complaint on July 3, 2019.1 On October 7, 2019, the court directed Defendants to file an answer and written report addressing Plaintiff's claims for relief.2 In compliance with the court’s order, Defendants submitted an answer, a written report, and relevant evidentiary materials refuting the allegations in the complaint. Docs. 19, 20. Upon review of this report, the court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ answer and written report. Doc. 21. 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.” Doc. 21 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. Doc. 21 at 1. The time allotted Plaintiff for filing a response in compliance with the directives of the court’s March 2, 2020, expired on March 23, 2020. Plaintiff has failed to file a response in opposition to Defendants’ report. The court, therefore, concludes this case should be dismissed.

1 Plaintiff originally filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. By order of August 7, 2019, Plaintiff’s complaint was transferred to this court. Doc. 4. 2 In accordance with the prior proceedings and orders entered in this matter, Plaintiff’s complaint against the Alabama Department of Corrections and Captain McCee was dismissed. See Docs. 10, 11. The court has reviewed the file to determine whether a drastic measure less than dismissal is appropriate. Plaintiff’s inaction in the face of Defendants’ written report and evidentiary materials refuting the claims raised suggests he does not seek to proceed with this case. Therefore, it 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,

(11th Cir. 1989) (recognizing that, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order generally 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 amendment to complaint in compliance with court’s prior order directing amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply). The authority of courts to impose sanctions for failure to prosecute or to obey an order is longstanding and is acknowledged, but not limited, by Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

, 629–30 (1962). This authority gives the courts power “to manage their own affairs so as to

achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”

at 630–31; Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op of Fla.,

, 102 (11th Cir. 1989) (“The sanctions imposed can range from a simple reprimand to an order dismissing the action with or without prejudice.”). For the above stated reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice. It is ORDERED that on or before June 9, 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, is not appealable. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of

(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 grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright,

(5th Cir. 1982); 11TH CIR. R. 3-1. See Stein v. Lanning Securities, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard,

(11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). DONE this 26th day of May, 2020.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE