Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-2114-P
08-14-2012
JAMIE LANE v. STEVE PRATOR, ET AL.
JUDGE STAGG
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
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 Jamie Lane ("Plaintiff"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was received and filed in this Court on December 4, 2009. Plaintiff claims his civil rights were violated by prison officials while incarcerated at the Caddo Correctional Center in Shreveport, Louisiana. He names Steve Prator, Robert Chapman, D.L. Reed, Mario Louis, the Caddo Parish Sheriff Department, and the Caddo Correctional Center as defendants.
Plaintiff was ordered on April 30, 2012, to furnish the Clerk of Court in Shreveport, Louisiana, within thirty (30) days after service of that order, one (1) copy of the complaint, two (2) completed summonses, and one (1) USM 285 for each defendant in this action, for service. [Doc. 10]. To date, Plaintiff has not done so.
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. 1983).
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 ten (10) 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, in chambers, at Shreveport, Louisiana, on this 14 day of August 2012.
____________________
MARK L. HORNSBY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE