Opinion
Civil Action 9:20cv13
11-07-2022
JAMES HARRIS DYKES, JR. v. WILLIAM JERRY
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ZACK HAWHORN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff James Harris Dykes, Jr., proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled lawsuit. This matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
Procedural Background
On October 3, 2022, the court entered an order directing plaintiff to submit an amended pleading. Plaintiff was given 30 days to comply with the court's order. The time for complying with the order has expired. However, plaintiff has not filed an amended pleading or otherwise contacted the court.
Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “This authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court's inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Boudwin v. Graystone Insurance Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962)).
By failing to comply with the order described above, plaintiff has failed to diligently prosecute this lawsuit. As a result, this case should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Recommendation
This lawsuit should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Objections
Objections must be (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served and filed within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72(b).
A party's failure to object bars that party from (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district judge of proposed findings and recommendations, Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass'n., 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).