Glass v. Parkland Health & Hosp. Sys.

Full title: EDWARD BENTON GLASS, Plaintiff, v. PARKLAND HEALTH AND HOSPITAL SYSTEM, ET…

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

Date published: Jan 11, 2016

No. 3:15-CV-3904-L (N.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2016)

Opinion

No. 3:15-CV-3904-L

01-11-2016

EDWARD BENTON GLASS, Plaintiff, v. PARKLAND HEALTH AND HOSPITAL SYSTEM, ET AL., Defendants.

PAUL D. STICKNEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause of action was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b), as implemented by an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge follow: I. Background

On December 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed this complaint. On December 15, 2015, the Court sent Plaintiff a Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire. On January 6, 2016, this Questionnaire was returned to the Court as undeliverable. Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with any alternative address. II. Discussion

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 (5^th 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 (5^th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)). Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with a current address. The Court is therefore unable to contact Plaintiff. Accordingly, this complaint should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that the District Court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Signed this 11^th day of January, 2016.

/s/_________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall 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). In order to be specific, 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).