Opinion
Civil Action 2:21-CV-16
07-15-2021
NAPTALI ARMANDO ORELLANA, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN PARTY, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
DAVID S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton's Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R), entered on May 4, 2021 (D.E. 14). The M&R recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs case without prejudice for want of prosecution or failure to comply with a court order. Id. at 2. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to comply with Magistrate Judge Hampton's order instructing Plaintiff to show cause within twenty days of April 7, 2021 why his lawsuit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution and instructing Plaintiff that he could show cause by “paying the filing fee or filing an IFP [in forma pauperis] application and a copy of his inmate trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” Id. at 1-2.
The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge's M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. To date, no objection has been filed. However, on June 28, 2021, more than sixty days after the April 27, 2021 deadline, Plaintiff filed his prisoner trust fund account statement without the requisite in forma pauperis application and without any explanation for his delay. (D.E. 16). As such, Plaintiff has failed to show cause why he should not have his case dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the magistrate judge's memorandum and recommendation is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, No. CIV. A. H-14-2700, 2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015).
Having carefully reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 14). Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiffs failure to prosecute his case or comply with a court order. FED. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Nothing in this order prevent Plaintiff from refiling his civil rights complaint and complying with the Magistrate Judge's instructions.
SO ORDERED.