Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-CV-1262 SECTION P
04-03-2017
ERIC FRANCIS LA. DOC #418411 v. TIM HOOPER
CHIEF JUDGE DEE D. DRELL
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Eric Francis filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on September 6, 2016. On January 19, 2017, plaintiff was instructed to amend his complaint within 40 days to provide more detailed information regarding his claims. [Rec. Doc. 11] Plaintiff has not responded to the order.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
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, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388-89, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (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). The undersigned evaluated the original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915 and directed plaintiff to amend and provide the information needed to further evaluate his claims. Plaintiff has disregarded the order to amend.
Therefore,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED in accordance with the provisions of FRCP Rule 41(b).
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).
In Chambers at Lafayette, Louisiana, April 3, 2017.
/s/ _________
PATRICK J. HANNA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE