Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:03cv706-LG-JMR.
June 9, 2006
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the Court, sua sponte, regarding failure of the petitioner Jeff L. Sheffield to respond to the Court's Order [17-1] of May 27, 2005, giving the petitioner until June 13, 2005, to file a response as to why summons had not been served and why the petitioner had failed to prosecute his case.
The petitioner filed his complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis on August 19, 2003. On September 16, 2003, the Court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered the petitioner to file an amended complaint. The petitioner did not file his amended complaint as instructed and the Court issued an Order to Show Cause [10-1] on October 31, 2003; to which the petitioner responded on November 13, 2003. On October 22, 2004, the Court entered another Order [14-1] allowing the petitioner a 15 day time extension to comply with previous orders. The petitioner responded to this order on November 1, 2004. The Court then issued an Order [16-1] directing the clerk to issue summons for the defendants. The Court finally issued another Order to Show Cause [17-1] on May 27, 2005, directing the petitioner to respond by June 13, 2005, and show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or failure to timely effect service of process. This order also cautioned the plaintiff that failure to comply could result in the dismissal of his civil action. Petitioner Jeff L. Sheffield never responded to this Court Order.
This Court has authority to dismiss an action for the petitioner's failure to prosecute under Rule 41 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under its inherent authority to dismiss the action sua sponte. Link v. Wabash Railroad, 370 U.S. 626 (1962); Lopez v. Arkansas County Independent School District, 570 F. 2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978); Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1032 (5th Cir. 1998). The Court must be able to clear its calendar of cases that remain dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief, so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Such a sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the court. Link, supra, 370 U.S. at 630.
Based on the foregoing, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has failed in his obligation to respond in accordance with the Court's Orders and that this failure is indicative of a lack of interest in pursuing this cause and delays the expeditious resolution of other cases. Therefore, this Court recommends that the claims of this petitioner, Jeff L. Sheffield, be dismissed without prejudice for the petitioner's failure to comply with the Court's Orders and Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In accordance with the Rules of this Court, any party, within ten days after being served a copy of this recommendation, may serve and file written objections to the recommendations, with a copy to the District Judge, the U.S. Magistrate Judge, and the opposing party. The District Judge at that time may accept, reject or modify in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or may receive further evidence or recommit the matter to this Court with instructions. Failure to timely file written objections to proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report will bar an aggrieved party, except on the grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal unobjected to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. Douglass v. United States Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1425 (5th Cir. 1996).