From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Francis v. Unknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Jan 25, 2021
CIVIL CASE NO. 3:20-CV-3399-E-BK (N.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2021)

Opinion

CIVIL CASE NO. 3:20-CV-3399-E-BK

01-25-2021

JOHN FRANCIS, #2253451, PLAINTIFF, v. UNKNOWN, DEFENDANT.


FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this pro se case was referred to the United States magistrate judge for case management, including the issuance of findings and a recommended disposition where appropriate. For the reasons that follow, this action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order.

On December 21, 2020, the Court issued a second deficiency order, which advised Plaintiff that, insofar as he sought to proceed with a civil action, he needed to complete and return an amended civil rights complaint on the Court-approved form along with filing and administrative fees of $400.00 or a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 5. See also N.D. Tex. Misc. Ord. 14 (requiring inmates to file civil rights complaints and motions to proceed in forma pauperis on the court-approved forms). The deadline for Plaintiff's response was January 18, 2021. However, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court's deficiency order, nor has he sought an extension of time to do so.

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). "This authority flows from the court's inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases." Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)).

Plaintiff has been given ample opportunity to respond to the Court's order. He has impliedly refused or declined to do so. Therefore, this action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order and for lack of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) (an involuntary dismissal "operates as an adjudication on the merits," unless otherwise specified).

SO RECOMMENDED on January 25, 2021.

/s/_________

RENÉE HARRIS TOLIVER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). An objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections to 14 days).


Summaries of

Francis v. Unknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Jan 25, 2021
CIVIL CASE NO. 3:20-CV-3399-E-BK (N.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2021)
Case details for

Francis v. Unknown

Case Details

Full title:JOHN FRANCIS, #2253451, PLAINTIFF, v. UNKNOWN, DEFENDANT.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Date published: Jan 25, 2021

Citations

CIVIL CASE NO. 3:20-CV-3399-E-BK (N.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2021)