Opinion
NO. 1:09-cv-00741.
February 2, 2010
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's November 30, 2009 Report and Recommendation (doc. 5), to which there were no objections. For the reasons indicated herein, the Court DISMISSES this matter for lack of prosecution.
The Magistrate Judge reported that the Court ordered Petitioner, on October 16, 2009, to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees within thirty days (doc. 3). The Magistrate Judge further reported that Petitioner has f ailed to comply with such Order, and recommended that this matter be dismissed for want of prosecution (doc. 5).
Having reviewed this matter, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation well-taken. The Magistrate Judge noted that district courts have the inherent power to sua sponte dismiss civil actions for want of prosecution to "manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases." Id. quoting Link v. Wabash R.R, 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). Moreover, the failure of a party to respond to an Order of the Court warrants the invocation of the Court's inherent power in a habeas corpus proceeding. Id.citing Rules Governing Section 2244 Cases in the United States District Courts.
Here, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Magistrate Judge's Deficiency Order, and has therefore failed to prosecute his claims. Consequently, the Court finds appropriate the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims.
Having reviewed this matter denovo, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to be thorough, well-reasoned, and correct. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (doc. 5), AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge's recommended decision (Id.), and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this case for lack of prosecution.
SO ORDERED.
Exhibit