Opinion
Civil Action 1:23cv197
02-07-2024
BRIAN MELONSON v. ZENA STEPHENS, ET AL.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Zack Hawhorn, United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Brian Melonson, an inmate confined at the Jefferson County Correctional Facility, proceeding pro se, brought the above-styled lawsuit.
The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
Discussion
At the time this action was filed, plaintiff was a prisoner confined at the Jefferson County Correctional Facility located in Beaumont, Texas.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “This authority [under Rule 41(b)] 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., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962).
When preparing to collect the remainder of the filing fee, court staff discovered plaintiff is no longer an inmate confined at the facility. See https://co.jefferson.tx.us/Sheriff/content/documents/ inmate/CURRENTINMATES.PDF. Plaintiff has failed to notify the court of an address at which he may be contacted. In fact, plaintiff has not contacted the court in more than four months. Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to diligently prosecute this case. Therefore, this case should be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
Recommendation
This case should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
Objections
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge's report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C).
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72.