Opinion
2:23-cv-01737
11-22-2024
KERRY SALAS DE LA MIYA v. DIVISION JUDGES 14 TH JDC, ET AL.
JAMES D. CAIN, JR. JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THOMAS P. LEBLANC UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the court are the original and amended civil rights complaints [docs. 4, 12, 28, 41], filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by plaintiff Kerry Salas de la Miya, who is proceeding pro se in this matter. De la Miya is an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. He is incarcerated at the Calcasieu Correctional Center in Lake Charles, Louisiana. This matter is referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of the court.
On June 18, 2024, plaintiff was ordered to amend his complaint within forty (40) days of the filing of the Court's order to cure deficiencies outlined by the Court, and alternatively, dismiss those claims and/or defendants plaintiff is unable to cure through amendment. Doc. 43.
Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's Order.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(b) permits dismissal of claims “for 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 (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). This power is “vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link, 370 U.S. at 630-31. De la Miya has failed to comply with an Order directing him to amend his complaint. This failure on his part warrants dismissal.
Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that de la Miya's complaint be DISMISSED in accordance with the provisions of FRCP Rule 41(b).
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that all pending motions be DENIED as MOOT.
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b), parties aggrieved by this recommendation have fourteen (14) 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 fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of any objections or response to the district judge at the time of filing.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the proposed legal conclusions reflected in this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days following the date of its service, or within the time frame authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. See, Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996).
THUS DONE AND SIGNED