Opinion
Civil Action 2:23-CV-00191
08-29-2023
JAMES ROBERT HATTENBACH, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ROCKPORT, et al., Respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Jason B. Libby, United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff James Robert Hattenbach filed this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on or about July 25, 2023. (D.E. 1). Plaintiff is an inmate in the Aransas County Detention Center (“ACDC”) in Rockport, Texas.
Construing his complaint liberally, Plaintiff appears to allege he has limited access to the unit law library which has interfered with his ability to participate in legal proceedings. However, Plaintiff's complaint alleges only a few, conclusory facts and does not assert claims rising to the level of a violation of his constitutional rights, namely denial of access to the courts. Therefore, on July 27 2023, Plaintiff was ordered to submit an amended complaint including the facts involved in this action by filing a written response on or before August 25, 2023. (D.E. 9). The undersigned explained what allegations and facts should be included in the amended complaint. (D.E. 9, Page 2). Additionally, Plaintiff was cautioned that his complaint was currently deficient and the failure to comply with the order would result in the dismissal of this action under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without further notice. (D.E. 9, Page 3).
To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply. Therefore, it is respectfully recommended that Petitioner's case be DISMISSED pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); see also Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding district courts have the inherent authority to sua sponte dismiss a cause of action for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with any court order).
SO ORDERED.
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to each party or counsel. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of the Memorandum and Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the United States Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and Article IV, General Order No. 2002-13, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation 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 unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).