Thomas v. Simpson

Full title: LARRY EUGENE THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. T. SIMPSON, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Oct 5, 2004

No. 3:04-CV-1077-H (N.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2004)

Opinion

No. 3:04-CV-1077-H.

October 5, 2004

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

IRMA C. RAMIREZ, Magistrate Judge

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an Order of the Court in implementation thereof, subject cause has previously been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:

I. BACKGROUND

On May 19, 2004, the Court received plaintiff's complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 28, 2004, the Court granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis and informed him that he must "notify the Court of any change of address by filing a written Notice of Change of Address with the Clerk." That order also warned plaintiff that the "[f]ailure to file such notice may result in this case being dismissed for want of prosecution."

On September 22, 2004, the Court mailed plaintiff a Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire. On October 1, 2004, that questionnaire was returned as undeliverable with the notation: "RTS/Rel." Plaintiff has thus changed addresses without notifying the Court. Such action violates the direct order of the Court that he notify the Court of any change of address, and exhibits an inclination not to prosecute this action.

II. INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (§ 1983 prisoner action). This authority flows from a court's inherent power to control its docket, prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases, and avoid congested court calendars. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). Plaintiff has failed to comply with the order of the Court that he notify the Court of any change of address. Accordingly, the Court should dismiss his complaint.

III. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).