From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shaw v. City of Dallas

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Jan 12, 2005
No. 3:04-CV-2399-B (N.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2005)

Opinion

No. 3:04-CV-2399-B.

January 12, 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 a job discrimination action.

Parties: Plaintiff is a resident of Arlington, Texas. Defendants are the City of Dallas and Kathleen Davis. No process has been issued in this case.

Statement of Case: On November 8, 2004, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On November 22, 2004, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint that complies with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), and to provide additional financial information in support of the request to proceed in forma pauperis. As of the date of this recommendation, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the November 22, 2004 orders. Nor has he paid the $150.00 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 submit an amended complaint, and to provide additional financial information in support of the request to proceed in forma pauperis. He has refused or declined to do so. Nor has he tendered the required $150.00 filing fee in lieu of the 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

Shaw v. City of Dallas

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Jan 12, 2005
No. 3:04-CV-2399-B (N.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2005)
Case details for

Shaw v. City of Dallas

Case Details

Full title:PATRICK SHAW, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DALLAS, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Jan 12, 2005

Citations

No. 3:04-CV-2399-B (N.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2005)