Opinion
Civil Action 23-1594-P
01-04-2024
MARLOW TREAMAINE GREEN v. MICHELE DAUZAT, ET AL.
DOUGHTY JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Mark L. Hornsby U.S. Magistrate Judge
In accordance with the standing order of this court, this matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for review, report and recommendation.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Before the court is a civil rights complaint filed by pro se plaintiff Marlow Treamaine Green (“Plaintiff”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was received and filed in this court on November 2, 2023. Plaintiff was incarcerated at the David Wade Correctional Center in Homer, Louisiana, when he filed this complaint. He names Michele Dauzat, Lonnie Nails, Lt. Col. Haulcy, Kayla Sherman, and Brenda Acklin as defendants.
On November 13, 2023, this court found that Plaintiff's suit was not in proper form and ordered Plaintiff to amend the pleadings within thirty days of the date of the order [Doc. 4]. However, that order was returned to this court on December 1, 2023, by the United States Postal Service marked “RETURN TO SENDER REFUSED UNABLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER NAME DOC# DOESN'T MATCH.” To date, Plaintiff has not informed this court of his new address.
Accordingly;
IT IS RECOMMENDED that this complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, sua sponte, for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as interpreted by the court and under the court's inherent power to control its own docket. See Link v. Wabash Railroad Company, 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386 (1962); Rogers v. Kroger Company, 669 F.2d 317, 320-321 (5th Cir. 1982).
OBJECTIONS
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), parties aggrieved by this recommendation have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court unless an extension of time is granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b). A party may respond to another party's objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Counsel are directed to furnish a courtesy copy of any objections or responses to the District Judge at the time of filing.
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation set forth above, within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the proposed factual findings and legal conclusions that were accepted by the district court and that were not objected to by the aforementioned party. See Douglas v. U.S.A.A., 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
THUS DONE AND SIGNED