Opinion
Civil Action 1:22-cv-74
11-21-2023
JOHN A. CROSTHWAIT v. TDCJ-CID, ET AL.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHRISTINE L STETSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff John A. Crosthwait, an inmate confined at the Stiles Unit located in Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, brought the above-styled lawsuit.
The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
Discussion
On April 24, 2023, Plaintiff was ordered to submit an address at which Defendant T. Lane may be served. Plaintiff's compliance was due on or before the expiration of fifteen (15) days from the date of the order.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with 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, 629 (1962)).
Plaintiff failed to comply with the order to provide an address for Defendant Lane. Accordingly, on May 18, 2023, the undersigned entered a Report recommending dismissal of the above-styled action for want of prosecution. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report in which he asserted he was at the prison hospital located in Galveston, Texas and was not able to visit with his jailhouse lawyer “Brandon.” Plaintiff indicated he would he would send in the appropriate paperwork when he returned to his unit or was able to talk to Brandon. The court therefore allowed Plaintiff additional time to comply with the order. As a result, the previous Report is withdrawn.
More than five months have elapsed from the time Plaintiff submitted his objections. As of this date, however, Plaintiff has failed to either comply with the order of the court or shown good cause for failing to do so. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to diligently prosecute this case. Therefore, this action should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
Recommendation
This action should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
Objections
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy 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.