Opinion
6:24-CV-00102-ADA-JCM
04-24-2024
RONALD EMRIT, Plaintiff, v. KARA PRATT, et al, Defendants.
TO: THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JEFFREY C. MANSKE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), and Rules 1(f) and 4(b) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
Before the Court is the above styled and numbered cause. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) in this case. That Motion was stricken because it was illegible. Text Order Apr. 12, 2024. Plaintiff was ordered to refile his Motion so that it was legible or to pay his filing fee by April 22, 2024. Id. Plaintiff has done neither. A district court has the inherent authority to dismiss a case for want of prosecution. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-33 (1962). This power may be exercised to effect the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases where less severe sanctions are unavailable. See Jones v. Caddo Parish Sch. Bd., 704 F.2d 206, 214 (5th Cir. 1983); Hejl v. State of Texas, 664 F.2d 1273, 1274-75 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 933 (1982). Because Plaintiff has not prosecute this case or explain his failure to comply with the Court's order, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the above styled and numbered cause be dismissed without prejudice.
OBJECTIONS
The parties may wish to file objections to this Report and Recommendation. Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which they object. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after the party is served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations in the Report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Except upon grounds of plain error, failing to object shall further bar the party from appellate review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150-53; Douglass, 79 F.3d at 1415.