Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:05cv621.
June 2, 2006
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner Scott Wesley Hall, an inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Complex in Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, brings this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
Discussion
On February 1, 2006, petitioner was ordered to either submit the full filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Additionally, petitioner was ordered to submit an amended pleading in response to questions propounded by the court. Both orders provided petitioner twenty (20) days within which to comply. As of this date, petitioner has failed to comply with the orders.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with any court order. See 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., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962).
As petitioner has failed to comply with the orders of the court, petitioner has failed to diligently prosecute the action. Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Recommendation
This case should be dismissed without prejudice.
Objections
Objections must be (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served and filed within ten 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. Hello This is a, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).