Anglin
v.
Edgemere/Aureon

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISIONAug 8, 2018
No. 3:18-cv-1564-B (BT) (N.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2018)

No. 3:18-cv-1564-B (BT)

08-08-2018

KEVIN L. ANGLIN, Plaintiff, v. EDGEMERE/AUREON, Defendant.


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:

I.

Plaintiff filed this complaint on June 15, 2018. On June 18, 2018, the Court sent Plaintiff a Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire seeking additional information regarding his claims. The Questionnaire stated that failure to respond within 30 days could result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. More than 30 days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Questionnaire.

II.

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 (5 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 (5 Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)). Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire. The Court must obtain additional information about the factual basis of this suit in order to screen the complaint and determine whether the defendant should be served. The inability to proceed with this litigation is directly attributable to Plaintiff's failure to provide the information requested. Under these circumstances, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

III.

The Court recommends that the complaint be dismissed for want of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Signed August 8, 2018.

/s/_________


REBECCA RUTHERFORD


UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).