From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dixon v. Perry

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Apr 16, 2004
No. 3:03-CV-3104-N (N.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2004)

Opinion

No. 3:03-CV-3104-N.

April 16, 2004


FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an Order of the Court in implementation thereof, subject cause has previously been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:

I. BACKGROUND

In December 2003, plaintiff filed this unspecified civil action. On February 9, 2004, the Court issued a Notice of Deficiency and Order (NOD) directing plaintiff to pay the required $150 filing fee or submit a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis. It granted him twenty days to cure the deficiency and warned him that the failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. On March 3, 2004, the NOD was returned as undeliverable with the notation "not at this address." On that same date, the Court re-mailed the NOD. To date, petitioner has filed nothing further in this case. Nor has he paid the requisite filing fee.

II. INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). This authority flows from a court's inherent power to control its docket, prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases, and avoid congested court calendars. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Order of February 9, 2004, that he correct the noted deficiency within twenty days. He has neither submitted a request to proceed in forma pauperis nor paid the filing fee in this action. Such failures indicate that he has no current intention to proceed with this case. Accordingly, the Court should dismiss his complaint.

III. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation on all parties by mailing a copy to each of them. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file and serve written objections within ten (10) days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions, or recommendation to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within ten days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) ( en banc).


Summaries of

Dixon v. Perry

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Apr 16, 2004
No. 3:03-CV-3104-N (N.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2004)
Case details for

Dixon v. Perry

Case Details

Full title:FRED A. DIXON, JR., Plaintiff, v. RICK PERRY, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

Date published: Apr 16, 2004

Citations

No. 3:03-CV-3104-N (N.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2004)