From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seastrunk v. Sorenson Media, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Jul 27, 2005
3:05-CV-1117-D (N.D. Tex. Jul. 27, 2005)

Opinion

3:05-CV-1117-D.

July 27, 2005


FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the District Court in implementation thereof, this case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, as evidenced by his signature thereto, are as follows:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Type of Case: This is an unspecified civil cation.

Parties: Plaintiff is a resident of Arlington, Texas. Defendant is Sorenson Media, Inc. No process has been issued in this case.

Statement of Case: On May 31, 2005, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On June 13, 2005, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to provide additional financial information in support of the request to proceed in forma pauperis, and to submit an amended complaint, which complies with Rule 8(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As of the date of this recommendation, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the June 13, 2005 orders. Nor has she paid the $250.00 filing fee.

Findings and Conclusions: 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. 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 provide additional financial information in support of the request to proceed in forma pauperis, and to submit an amended complaint in compliance with Rule 8(a). She has refused or declined to do so. Nor has she tendered the required $250.00 filing fee in lieu of her request to proceed in forma pauperis. Therefore, this action should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

RECOMMENDATION:

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). A copy of this recommendation will be mailed to Plaintiff.


Summaries of

Seastrunk v. Sorenson Media, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Jul 27, 2005
3:05-CV-1117-D (N.D. Tex. Jul. 27, 2005)
Case details for

Seastrunk v. Sorenson Media, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:BRENDA J. SEASTRUNK, Plaintiff, v. SORENSON MEDIA, INC., Defendant

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

Date published: Jul 27, 2005

Citations

3:05-CV-1117-D (N.D. Tex. Jul. 27, 2005)