From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hughes v. City of Dallas

United States District Court, Northern District of Texas
Oct 20, 2021
CIVIL 3:21-CV-2148-N-BK (N.D. Tex. Oct. 20, 2021)

Opinion

CIVIL 3:21-CV-2148-N-BK

10-20-2021

Terrell Rayshawn Hughes, Plaintiff, v. City of Dallas, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

RENEE HARRIS TOLIVER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this case, filed by a pro se plaintiff, was referred to the United States magistrate judge for case management, including the issuance of findings and a recommended disposition where appropriate. For the reasons that follow, this action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order and for want of prosecution.

On September 20, 2021, the Court issued a deficiency order, requiring Plaintiff to (1) file a complaint that meets the minimum pleading requirements of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8(a) and (2) pay the $402.00 filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the AO 239 form. Doc. 5. The deadline for Plaintiff's response was October 11, 2021. As of the date of this recommendation, however, Plaintiff has neither responded to the Court's order nor sought an extension of the time to do so.

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 (5th Cir. 1998). “This authority 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 (1962)).

Plaintiff has been given ample opportunity to respond to the Court's order. He has impliedly refused or declined to do so. Therefore, this action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order and for lack of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) (an involuntary dismissal “operates as an adjudication on the merits, ” unless otherwise specified).

SO RECOMMENDED.

Instructions for Service and Notice of Right to Appeal/Object

A copy of this report and recommendation will 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). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is made, the basis for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation 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. SeeDouglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections to 14 days).


Summaries of

Hughes v. City of Dallas

United States District Court, Northern District of Texas
Oct 20, 2021
CIVIL 3:21-CV-2148-N-BK (N.D. Tex. Oct. 20, 2021)
Case details for

Hughes v. City of Dallas

Case Details

Full title:Terrell Rayshawn Hughes, Plaintiff, v. City of Dallas, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of Texas

Date published: Oct 20, 2021

Citations

CIVIL 3:21-CV-2148-N-BK (N.D. Tex. Oct. 20, 2021)