Opinion
CIVIL 3:23-CV-426-L-BK
04-19-2023
Donald Ray Long, Plaintiff, v. The Dallas Housing Authority, Defendant.
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 pro se case was referred to the United States magistrate judge for judicial screening, including the issuance of findings and a recommended disposition. 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 March 2, 2023, the Court issued a questionnaire requiring Plaintiff to expound on the factual allegations asserted in the complaint. Doc. 6. The deadline for Plaintiffs response was March 23, 2023. As of the date of this recommendation, however, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court's questionnaire, nor has he sought an extension of 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 RR Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)).
Plaintiff has been given ample opportunity to respond to the Court's questionnaire. 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).
For the foregoing reasons, this action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order and for want of prosecution.
Absent answers to the magistrate judge's questionnaire, the Court cannot determine when the events at issue in this case occurred. Thus, it is unclear whether the higher standard for dismissal with prejudice for want of prosecution would be applicable in this case. See Callip v. Harris County Child Welfare Department, 757 F.2d 1513, 1519 (5th Cir. 1985).
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. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79F.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).