Bishop v. Okla. Cnty.

Full title: ADRIAN DESJUAN BISHOP, Petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA COUNTY OF, Respondent.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Date published: Mar 6, 2015

Case No. CIV-15-55-R (W.D. Okla. Mar. 6, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. CIV-15-55-R

03-06-2015

ADRIAN DESJUAN BISHOP, Petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA COUNTY OF, Respondent.

SHON T. ERWIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, a prisoner appearing pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the above referenced case. The undersigned magistrate judge reviewed the pleadings filed by Petitioner and entered an Order, (ECF No. 4), notifying Petitioner that in order for this action to proceed, Petitioner must either pay the $5.00 filing fee or be granted leave to proceed without prepayment of fees. The Petitioner was ordered to cure this deficiency by February 13, 2015, and advised that if the deficiency was not cured, the undersigned would recommend the dismissal of the action without prejudice. As of this date, Petitioner has failed to comply with the Order or file any further pleadings with the Court.

Petitioner's lack of interest in complying with the Court's order combined with the Court's attempt to manage and control its caseload warrant a dismissal of the Petition without prejudice. See Gripe v. City of Enid, Okla., 312 F.3d 1184, 1188 (10^th Cir, 2002) (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize sanctions, including dismissal, for the failure to comply with court's orders). See also Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents at Arapahoe County Justice Center, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 n.2, 1162 (10^th Cir. 2007) (sua sponte dismissal for failure to comply with court's orders permitted under federal rules, and court need not follow any particular procedures in dismissing actions without prejudice for failure to comply).

It is therefore recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice to re-filing unless Petitioner pays the $5.00 filing fee in full to the Clerk of the Court within twenty (20) days of any order adopting this Report and Recommendation.

Petitioner is advised of his right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of Court by March 23, 2015, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Plaintiff is further advised that any failure to make timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed herein. Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10^th Cir. 2010).

This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in the captioned matter.

ENTERED on March 6, 2015.

/s/_________

SHON T. ERWIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE