RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TERRY F. MOORER, Magistrate Judge.

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was filed by Plaintiff on July 19, 2011. On August 18, 2011 the court entered an order of procedure which instructed Plaintiff, among other things, to inform the court of any change in her address. (Doc. No. 9, ¶6(h).) The order further informed Plaintiff that her failure to comply with this requirement would result in a Recommendation that this case be dismissed. (Id.)

It recently came to the court's attention that Plaintiff is no longer residing at the service address she provided to the court when she filed this complaint. Consequently, the court entered an order on May 3, 2013 directing Plaintiff to provide the court with her present address on or before May 13, 2013. (Doc. No. 56.) Plaintiff was cautioned that her failure to comply with the court's May 3 order would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. (Id.) Plaintiff's copy of the court's May 3 order was returned to the court marked as undeliverable. As it appears clear that Plaintiff is no longer residing at the most recent address she provided to the court and that she has not provided this court with a new address for service, the undersigned concludes that dismissal of the complaint is appropriate.

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failures to prosecute this action properly and to comply with the orders of this court.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before June 18, 2013 the parties may file an objection to the Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court 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 the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.