From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oliver v. Kaufman Cnty. Jail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Jul 27, 2020
CIVIL CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1622-E-BK (N.D. Tex. Jul. 27, 2020)

Opinion

CIVIL CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1622-E-BK

07-27-2020

JOHNNY L. OLIVER, III, PLAINTIFF, v. KAUFMAN COUNTY JAIL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.


FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this pro se case was referred to the United States magistrate judge for case management, including the issuance of findings and a recommended disposition. For the reasons that follow, this action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order and for want of prosecution.

On June 19, 2020, the Court issued a deficiency order, which required Plaintiff to (1) pay the $400.00 filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the AO-239 form and (2) register to use the Court's electronic filing system. Doc. 7. The deadline for Plaintiff's response was July 10, 2020. As of the date of this recommendation, however, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court's order, nor has he sought an extension of time to do so.

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 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 (1962)).

Plaintiff has been given ample opportunity to respond to the Court's order. He has impliedly refused or declined to do so. Therefore, this action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order and for lack of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) (an involuntary dismissal "operates as an adjudication on the merits," unless otherwise specified).

SO RECOMMENDED on July 27, 2020.

/s/_________

RENÉE HARRIS TOLIVER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is made, the basis for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections to 14 days).


Summaries of

Oliver v. Kaufman Cnty. Jail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Jul 27, 2020
CIVIL CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1622-E-BK (N.D. Tex. Jul. 27, 2020)
Case details for

Oliver v. Kaufman Cnty. Jail

Case Details

Full title:JOHNNY L. OLIVER, III, PLAINTIFF, v. KAUFMAN COUNTY JAIL, ET AL.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Date published: Jul 27, 2020

Citations

CIVIL CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1622-E-BK (N.D. Tex. Jul. 27, 2020)