From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blanson v. Autozone Stores, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
Sep 10, 2008
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-1587 (W.D. La. Sep. 10, 2008)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-1587.

September 10, 2008


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


On April 17, 2008, the court allotted plaintiff Lamar Blanson 30 days to enroll new legal counsel, or to notify the court in writing that he intended to represent himself pro se. (April 17, 2008, Electronic Order). On June 4, 2008, the court granted plaintiff an additional ten days to enroll new counsel or to inform the court that he intended to proceed pro se. (June 4, 2008, Electronic Remark). However, plaintiff failed to comply with the order and has not otherwise sought an extension of time. Accordingly, on August 22, 2008, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause, in writing, on or before the 5th day of September 2008, why his complaint should not be dismissed with prejudice for failing to comply with an order of this court in accordance with the provisions of FRCP Rule 41(b). This period has since lapsed, and no response has been filed by plaintiff.

On August 28, 2008, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address. [doc. # 17]. However, he informed the Clerk of Court's office that he had received the August 22, 2008, show cause order.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(b) permits dismissal of claims "[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with . . . any order of court . . ." The district court also has the inherent authority to dismiss an action sua sponte, without motion by a defendant. Link v. Wabash R.R.Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388-89 (1962). "The power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the [d]istrict [c]ourts." McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988).

In light of plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with or respond to court orders,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in accordance with the provisions of FRCP Rule 41(b).

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and FRCP Rule 72(b), the parties have ten (10) business days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may respond to another party's objections within ten (10) business days after being served with a copy thereof. A courtesy copy of any objection or response or request for extension of time shall be furnished to the District Judge at the time of filing. Timely objections will be considered by the District Judge before he makes a final ruling.

A PARTY'S FAILURE TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT WITHIN TEN (10) BUSINESS DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ITS SERVICE SHALL BAR AN AGGRIEVED PARTY, EXCEPT ON GROUNDS OF PLAIN ERROR, FROM ATTACKING ON APPEAL THE UNOBJECTED-TO PROPOSED FACTUAL FINDINGS AND LEGAL CONCLUSIONS ACCEPTED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE.


Summaries of

Blanson v. Autozone Stores, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
Sep 10, 2008
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-1587 (W.D. La. Sep. 10, 2008)
Case details for

Blanson v. Autozone Stores, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:LAMAR BLANSON v. AUTOZONE STORES, INC

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division

Date published: Sep 10, 2008

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-1587 (W.D. La. Sep. 10, 2008)