Moxley v. Davis

Full title: STEVEN MOXLEY, #03038472, Plaintiff, v. NFN DAVIS, ET AL., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Texas

Date published: Jan 15, 2004

No. 3:03-CV-1513-N (N.D. Tex. Jan. 15, 2004)

Opinion

No. 3:03-CV-1513-N

January 15, 2004

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PAUL STICKNEY, Magistrate Judge

This cause of action was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b), as implemented by an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge follow:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

I. NATURE OF THE CASE

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his civil rights.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On July 7, 2003, Plaintiff filed this complaint alleging that Defendants violated his civil rights. On December 3, 2003, the Court sent Plaintiff a Second Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire. On December 23, 2003, this Questionnaire was returned to the Court with the notation "attempted not known." Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with any alternative address.

III. DISCUSSION

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or 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. Gray stone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)). Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with a current address. The Court is therefore unable to contact Plaintiff. Accordingly, this complaint should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that the District Court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

The United States District Clerk shall serve a true copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendation on Plaintiff. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions and recommendation must serve and file written objections within ten days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions or recommendation to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation shall bar that party from a de novo determination by the District Court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S.Ct. 466, 472 (1985). Additionally, any failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within ten days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).