Summary
recommending dismissal of case without prejudice where inmate did not timely respond to court's questionnaire, even after he updated address
Summary of this case from Ange v. CashOpinion
No. 3:01-CV-2405-L
June 18, 2002
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) and an order of the District Court, this case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge follow:
Parties:
Petitioner is in the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Respondents are Anne Estrada, INS Director, and the following employees of the Navarro County Jail, Tommy Nichols, Leshe Cotton, Don Barron, Faith Holt and Claudia Cooper.
Statement of Case:
On November 21, 2001, Plaintiff filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 23, 2002, the Court sent Plaintiff a United States Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire seeking additional information regarding his claims. The Questionnaire warned Plaintiff that failure to return the Questionnaire within thirty (30) days could result in a recommendation that Plaintiffs complaint be dismissed. On February 25, 2002, and March 14, 2002, the Court received notices from Plaintiff that his address had changed. On May 8, 2002, the Court therefore re-sent the Questionnaire to Plaintiffs new address. More than thirty (30) days have passed since the Court sent Plaintiff the Questionnaire, and Plaintiff has failed to respond.
III. DISCUSSION
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). "This authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court's inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases." Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)). Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's Order. Accordingly, his complaint should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that the District Court dismiss Plaintiffs complaint without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
The United States District Clerk shall serve a true copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendation on Plaintiff. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions and recommendation must serve and file written objections within ten days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions or recommendation to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation shall bar that party from a de novo determination by the District Court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S.Ct. 466, 472 (1985). Additionally, any failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within ten days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).