Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-183; "P"
05-19-2016
D'ANDRE A. MILLS, Plaintiff v. LASALLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, ET AL., Defendants
CHIEF JUDGE DRELL
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is a civil rights complaint (42 U.S.C. § 1983) filed by pro se Plaintiff D'Andre A. Mills (#520821). Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on March 8, 2016. (Doc. 9). On March 22, 2016, Plaintiff was ordered to amend his complaint to provide factual support for his claims. (Doc. 10). The amended complaint was due on or before April 21, 2016. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's order.
This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of the Court.
A district court may dismiss an action for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute or to comply with any order of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A court possesses the inherent authority to dismiss the action sua sponte, without motion by a defendant. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). "The power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the [d]istrict [c]ourts." Id. at 629- 630. Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's order to amend his complaint, and the action should be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the § 1983 complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Objections
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) , the parties have fourteen (14) calendar days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may respond to another party's objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. No other briefs or responses (such as supplemental objections, reply briefs, etc.) may be filed. Providing a courtesy copy of the objection to the magistrate judge is neither required nor encouraged. Timely objections will be considered by the district judge before a final ruling.
FAILURE TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ITS SERVICE SHALL BAR AN AGGRIEVED PARTY, EXCEPT UPON GROUNDS OF PLAIN ERROR, FROM ATTACKING ON APPEAL THE FACTUAL FINDINGS AND LEGAL CONCLUSIONS ACCEPTED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO WHICH THE PARTY DID NOT OBJECT.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers in Alexandria, Louisiana, this 19th day of May, 2016.
/s/_________
Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes
United States Magistrate Judge