Opinion
Civil Action 1:23-CV-20
03-27-2023
MICHAEL C. JAMES v. DAVID GUITERRIEZ, et al.,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Zack Hawthorn United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, Michael C. James, an inmate confined at the Mark Stiles Unit with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants David Guiterriez, Chairman of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, Ressie Owens, Chairman of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, Paul Keil, John Doe, and Jane Doe.
The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation for the disposition of the case.
Background
Plaintiff filed this civil rights action on January 17, 2023 (doc. # 1). Plaintiff did not pay the $402.00 filing fee nor filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. On January 19, 2023, the undersigned ordered the Clerk of Court to mail Plaintiff a copy of the in forma pauperis application for prisoners and the form complaint for a prisoner civil rights case (doc. # 2). The order gave Plaintiff twenty (20) days to complete and return the forms. Id. Plaintiff received a copy of the order on January 27, 2023 (doc. # 3). More than ample time has passed, yet the court has received no further communication from Plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to comply with this court's order.
Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a 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 Insurance Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962)). Plaintiff has failed to comply with this court's order and has failed to otherwise communicate with this court.
Recommendation
This civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Objections
Within fourteen (14) 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 (14) 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.