Opinion
Civil Action 9:22-cv-53
01-17-2023
DANZAVIA QUINTEZ GEE v. DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHRISTINE L STETSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner Danzavia Quintez Gee, proceeding pro se, filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. This matter was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
Procedural Background
On October 12, 2022, the court entered an Order (doc. #3) directing Petitioner to either pay the required filing fee or submit a properly certified Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis showing deposits into his inmate trust account during the preceding six month period. Petitioner was given 20 days to comply with the court's Order. The time for complying with the Order has expired. However, Petitioner has failed to comply with the court's Order, 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 Ins. 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, Petitioner has failed to diligently prosecute this matter. As a result, this case should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution.
Recommendation
This Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 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 Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
SIGNED.