Opinion
Civil Action 1:22-CV-568
12-15-2022
DEMARIOL BYRD v. UNKNOWN DEFENDANT
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ZACK HAWTHORN, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff DeMariol Byrd, a prisoner confined at the United States Penitentiary in Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), against an unknown defendant.
The action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
Discussion
On December 14, 2022, a document mailed to Plaintiff at his last known address was returned to the court as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not provided the court with his current mailing address.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “The power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” Link v. Wabash Railroad, 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case diligently because he did not notify the court of his current mailing address. Accordingly, this action should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution.
Recommendation
This case should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Objections
Within fourteen days after receipt of the magistrate judge's report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72.
SIGNED