Opinion
21-CV-01815
10-13-2021
ORIEN DURELL ELLIES v. LAFAYETTE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, ET AL
MICHAEL J. JUNEAU, JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PATRICK J. HANNA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Before the court is the civil rights complaint (rec. doc. 1) filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by plaintiff Orien Durell Ellies, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this matter. At the time of filing, Ellies was an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, incarcerated at the Lafayette Parish Correctional Center in Lafayette, Louisiana.
I. Background
The above-captioned matter was transferred to this Court on June 23, 2021, from the Eastern District of Louisiana. Rec. Doc. 5. Since that date, numerous documents have been mailed to the plaintiff at his last known address, the Lafayette Parish Correctional Center, and been returned, undeliverable. See rec. docs. 8, 13, 14, 15.
II. Law & Application
Local Rule (LR) 41.3W provides in part, “The failure of a[]... pro se litigant to keep the court apprised of an address change may be considered cause for dismissal for failure to prosecute when a notice is returned to the court for the reason of an incorrect address and no correction is made to the address for a period of thirty days.” More than thirty days have elapsed since the court's last correspondence was returned.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Ellies' complaint be DISMISSED in accordance with the provisions of and LR41.3W.
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.RCiv.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.