RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SUSAN RUSS WALKER, Chief Magistrate Judge.

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a complaint filed by Barry Murry ["Murry"], a state inmate. In the complaint, Murry challenges actions taken against him during a previous term of incarceration at the Frank Lee Work Release Center.

Pursuant to the orders of this court, the defendant filed a written report supported by relevant evidentiary materials in which he addressed the claims for relief presented by Murry. The report and evidentiary materials refute the allegations presented by Murry in the complaint. Specifically, these documents indicate that the defendant did not subject Murry to actions that violated the Eighth Amendment.

In light of the foregoing, the court issued an order directing Murry to file a response to the defendant's written report. Order of April 15, 2013 — Doc. No. 21. The order advised Murry 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 (emphasis in original). Additionally, the order "specifically cautioned [the 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 Murry for filing a response in compliance with this order has expired. As of the present date, Murry has failed to file a requisite response in opposition to the defendant's written report. The court therefore concludes this case should be dismissed.

The court has reviewed the file to determine whether a less drastic measure than dismissal is appropriate. After such review, it is clear dismissal of this case is the proper course of action. Murry is an indigent inmate. Thus, the imposition of monetary or other punitive sanctions against him would be ineffectual. Additionally, Murry has exhibited a lack of deference for this court and its authority as he has failed to comply with the directives of the orders entered in this case. Finally, Murry's actions in the face of the report filed by the defendant indicate a loss of interest in the continued prosecution of this case and the undisputed evidentiary materials submitted by the defendant show that no violation of the Constitution occurred. It is therefore apparent that any additional effort by this court to secure his compliance would be unavailing. Consequently, the court concludes that the plaintiff's abandonment of his claims and his failure to comply with the orders of this court warrant dismissal.

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

ORDERED that on or before June 10, 2013 the parties may file objections to the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. 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 written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation 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 decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.