Rodriguez
v.
Davis

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISIONOct 25, 2016
No. 3:16-CV-1881-L (N.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2016)

No. 3:16-CV-1881-L

10-25-2016

IVAN RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. LORIE DAVIS, Director TDCJ-CID Respondent.


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.

Petitioner filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 8, 2016, the Court sent Petitioner a notice of deficiency because he failed to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The notice informed Petitioner that failure to cure the deficiency within thirty days could result in a recommendation that this petition be dismissed. More than thirty days have passed, and Petitioner has failed to respond to the Court's order.

II.

Under 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, 82 S.Ct. 1386 (1962)). Petitioner has failed to comply with the Court's order. Accordingly, his petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

III.

The Court recommends that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Signed this 25 day of October, 2016.

/s/_________


PAUL D. STICKNEY


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).