Opinion
SA-24-CV-00031-OLG
07-23-2024
KEENAN P JONES, Plaintiff, v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., Defendant.
Honorable Orlando L. Garcia United States District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ELIZABETH S. ("BETSY") CHESTNEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This Report and Recommendation concerns the above-styled cause of action. All pretrial matters in this case have been referred to the undersigned for disposition pursuant to Western District of Texas Local Rule CV-72 and Appendix C. The undersigned has authority to enter this recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that this action be dismissed for want of prosecution.
I. Background and Analysis
The record reflects that this case was removed from state court on January 8, 2024, by Defendant. Following removal, the Court issued an order that the parties satisfy their obligations to meet and confer under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 16. On June 11, 2024, Defendant informed the Court of Plaintiff's failure to comply with his obligation to meet and confer and Plaintiff's failure to respond to Defendant's emails and phone calls. The District Court subsequently entered Defendant's proposed scheduling order to govern this case.
After receiving the referral, the undersigned issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a More Definite Statement by July 8, 2024, to assist the Court in evaluating the substance of Plaintiff's claims and possible jurisdictional issues. This order warned Plaintiff that a failure to file the ordered More Definite Statement could result in the dismissal of his case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The deadline for the filing of the More Definite Statement has expired, and Plaintiff has not complied with the Court's order. Additionally, since removal, Plaintiff has not participated in this lawsuit or taken any action to prosecute his case or to pursue his claims.
A district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with any order of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir.1988) (per curiam); Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). The undersigned will therefore recommend dismissal of this case for want of prosecution and failure to follow a court order.
II. Conclusion and Recommendation
Having considered the record in this case and governing law, the undersigned recommends that this case be DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.
III. Instructions for Service and Notice of Right to Object/Appeal
The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of this report and recommendation on all parties by either (1) electronic transmittal to all parties represented by attorneys registered as a “filing user” with the clerk of court, or (2) by mailing a copy to those not registered by certified mail, return receipt requested. Written objections to this report and recommendation must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of same, unless this time period is modified by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The party shall file the objections with the Clerk of Court and serve the objections on all other parties. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions or recommendations to which objections are being made and the basis for such objections; the district court need not consider frivolous, conclusive or general objections. A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the district court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985); Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir. 2000). Additionally, failure to file timely written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report and recommendation shall bar the aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the un-objected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).