Opinion
Civil Action 1:22-cv-289
12-19-2022
GERARDO MELENDEZ v. WARDEN, FCI BEAUMONT LOW
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHRISTINE L STETSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner Gerardo Melendez, proceeding pro se, filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter 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 recommendations for the disposition of the case.
Procedural Background
On November 8, 2022, the court entered a Memorandum Order (Doc. #4.) directing Petitioner to pay the $5 filing fee. Petitioner was given 30 days to comply with the Memorandum Order. The time for compliance has expired. However, Petitioner has not complied with the court's Memorandum Order or otherwise contacted the court.
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 Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962)).
By failing to comply with the Memorandum Order described above, Petitioner has failed to diligently prosecute this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. As a result, this case should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Recommendation
This Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Objections
Objections must be (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served and filed within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(A), 6(B) AND 72(B).
A party's failure to object bars that party from (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district judge of proposed findings and recommendations, Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n., 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).