From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Yeagin v. Lyons

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Lufkin Division
Oct 13, 2023
Civil Action 9:23-cv-96 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 13, 2023)

Opinion

Civil Action 9:23-cv-96

10-13-2023

SHANE YEAGIN v. BRYON LYONS, ET AL.


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CHRISTINE L STETSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Shane Yeagin, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled civil rights lawsuit. This matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

Discussion

Judicial notice is taken that in Yeagin v. Wallace, No. 9:23cv128 (E.D. Tex.), the court entered a Preliminary Filing Fee Order (doc. #9). A copy of the Order was sent to Plaintiff at the Polk County Jail, the address Plaintiff provided in that case as well as in the above-styled action. The copy of the Order sent to Plaintiff was returned to the court with a notation stating Plaintiff was no longer at that facility (doc. #10). Plaintiff has not provided the court with a new address in either civil action number 9:23cv128 or in this matter.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action for want of prosecution sua sponte whenever necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Anthony v. Marion Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980). See also McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). Eastern District of Texas Local Rule CV-11(d) requires pro se litigants such as Plaintiff to provide the court with a physical address and keep the clerk advised in writing of a current address.

By not providing the court with his current address, Plaintiff has prevented the court from communicating with him and moving this case towards resolution. He has therefore failed to diligently prosecute this case. As a result, this case should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution.

Recommendation

This civil rights lawsuit should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Objections

Within 14 days after receipt of the magistrate judge's report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C).

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations contained within this report within 14 days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72.


Summaries of

Yeagin v. Lyons

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Lufkin Division
Oct 13, 2023
Civil Action 9:23-cv-96 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 13, 2023)
Case details for

Yeagin v. Lyons

Case Details

Full title:SHANE YEAGIN v. BRYON LYONS, ET AL.

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Lufkin Division

Date published: Oct 13, 2023

Citations

Civil Action 9:23-cv-96 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 13, 2023)