Opinion
Civil Action 4:21-cv-820-SDJ-KPJ
11-15-2022
JAYME CANTU, Plaintiff, v. GEARY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL and RICHARD LOCHAMY, MD Defendants.
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. On June 16, 2022, Defendant Geary Community Hospital was dismissed from the case. See Dkt. 8. As set forth below, the Court finds Plaintiff Jayme Cantu's (“Plaintiff”) claims against the remaining Defendant, Richard Lochamy, MD (“Dr. Lochamy”), should be DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution.
On June 17, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff, within fourteen (14) days after receiving service of the order (the “June 17 Order”), to inform the Court how she wished to proceed against Dr. Lochamy. See Dkt. 9. Plaintiff was advised: “If Plaintiff fails to timely file her status report, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff's claims against Dr. Lochamy be dismissed without prejudice. If dismissal is satisfactory to Plaintiff, no further action is necessary.” Id. On October 11, 2022, the June 17 Order was sent to Plaintiff at Plaintiff's email address, dcmom2010@gmail.com. See Docket Entry for November 14, 2022; see also Dkt. 11 (ordering the Clerk of Court to add Plaintiff's email address, dcmom2010@gmail.com, to Plaintiff's address of record and send all orders and filings, including all previous orders and filings, to Plaintiff via email). To date, Plaintiff has not filed a status report indicating how she wishes to proceed against Dr. Lochamy.
It is, therefore, recommended that Plaintiff's claims against Dr. Lochamy 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 may serve and file written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C.A. § 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, 148 (1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).
So Ordered.