Phillipsv.U.S.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas DivisionOct 24, 2001
3:01-CV-1688-L (N.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2001)

3:01-CV-1688-L.

October 24, 2001.


FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


WILLIAM SANDERSON, Magistrate Judge

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the District Court in implementation thereof, this cause has been referred to the United States magistrate judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the magistrate judge, as evidenced by his signature thereto, are as follows:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Type of Case: This is a civil rights action.

Parties: Plaintiff's address or place of confinement is presently unknown. He was incarcerated at the Federal Correction Institution in Butner, North Carolina, at the time of filing this action. Defendants are the United States of America, the Office of the United States Attorney, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Michele Fusseyamore, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Dr. Stephen Dewalt, Sally Johnson, Warden A. Beeler, the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the United States Navy, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defense Investigative Services, the United States Treasury Department, the Veterans Administration, the Social Security Administration, Roy Green, Ron Corbett, the Jail Administrator of the Glynn County Sheriffs Department, and the Custodian of Records.

Findings and Conclusions: On September 4, 2001, the magistrate judge issued a Notice of Deficiency and Order to Plaintiff. The order notified Plaintiff that he had neither paid the filing fee nor submitted a proper request to proceed in forma pauperis. The deficiency order then directed Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies within thirty days and cautioned him that failure to comply with the order will result in a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute. On September 13, 2001, the deficiency order was returned to the court with the notation "unclaimed, attempted not known." Apparently Plaintiff was discharged from custody or transferred to another penal unit between the date on which he filed his complaint and the date on which the magistrate judge's order was returned as being undeliverable. As of the date of this recommendation, Petitioner has neither notified the court of his current address, nor complied with the September 4, 2001 order.

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, 82 S.Ct. 1386 (1962)).

As of this date Plaintiff apparently has lost interest in pursuing any claims in this district as evidenced by the fact that, although his prior address is now changed, he has not provided the court with his new mailing address. The court is not required to maintain this case on its active docket until Plaintiff, if, ever decides to advise it of his current address.

RECOMMENDATION:

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

A copy of this recommendation will be mailed to Plaintiff.

NOTICE

In the event that you wish to object to this recommendation, you are hereby notified that you must file your written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of this recommendation. Pursuant to Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), a party's failure to file written objections to these proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within such ten-day period may bar a de novo determination by the district judge of any finding of fact or conclusion of law and shall bar such party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected to proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the district court.