Opinion
NO: 5:16CV00074 JLH/PSH
04-28-2016
TERRELL ROSS ADC #120005 PLAINTIFF v. DALLAS COUNTY JAIL DEFENDANT
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
INSTRUCTIONS
The following Proposed Findings and Recommendation have been sent to United States District Judge J. Leon Holmes. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.
DISPOSITION
Plaintiff Terrell Ross, who is currently held at the Dallas County Detention Center, filed a pro se complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on March 8, 2016. On March 24, 2016, the Court entered an order denying Ross's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it contained incomplete financial information (Doc. No. 3). That same order directed Ross to pay the filing and administrative fees, or to file a fully completed in forma pauperis application within 30 days, and warned him that his failure to do so would result in the recommended dismissal of his complaint.
More than 30 days have passed, and Ross has not paid the filing and administrative fees, filed a new application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise responded to the order. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that Ross's complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee, failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), and failure to respond to the Court's order. See Miller v. Benson, 51 F.3d 166, 168 (8th Cir. 1995) (district courts have inherent power to dismiss sua sponte a case for failure to prosecute, and exercise of that power is reviewed for abuse of discretion).
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. Ross's complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to pay the filing fee, failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), and failure to respond to the Court's order.
2. The Court certify that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from the order and judgment dismissing this action is considered frivolous and not in good faith.
DATED this 28th day of April, 2016.
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE