Opinion
Civil Action 4:21-cv-819-ALM-KPJ
06-09-2023
FRANCOIS AUGUSTON, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CO., LLC, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KIMBERLY C. PRIEST JOHNSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. See Dkt. 2. As set forth below, the Court finds Plaintiff Francois Auguston's (“Plaintiff”) claims against Defendant National Administrative Service Co., LLC (“Defendant”) should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of prosecution.
On March 3, 2023, the Court entered an Order Governing Proceedings (Dkt. 22), wherein the Court ordered Plaintiff and Defendant to file a Rule 26(f) joint report of attorney conference (the “Rule 26(f) Report”) by April 25, 2023. See Dkt. 22 at 1. On May 1, 2023, the Court ordered the Rule 16 Management Conference be canceled because the parties had not filed the Rule 26(f) Report or contacted the Clerk's Office. See Dkt. 23 at 1. The Court further ordered the parties file a joint status report regarding the status of this matter on or before May 15, 2023. See id. As the parties did not file a joint status report, on May 18, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff file a status report regarding the status of this case on or before fourteen (14) days of receipt of the Court's May 18, 2023 Order. See Dkt. 25 at 1. The Court further advised Plaintiff that failure to file a status report or otherwise act will result in the Court recommending this matter be dismissed without prejudice. See id. To date, Plaintiff has not taken any action or contacted the Clerk's office regarding this matter.
It is, therefore, recommended that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
Within fourteen (14) days after service of the magistrate judge's report, any party must serve and file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A party is entitled to a de novo review by the district court of the findings and conclusions contained in this report only if specific objections are made, and failure to timely file written objections to any proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report shall bar an aggrieved party from appellate review of those factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, except on grounds of plain error, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. Id.; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 29 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten (10) to fourteen (14) days).
So ORDERED