Opinion
Civil Action 1:20cv454
01-08-2024
JIMMIE MARK PARROTT, JR. v. BRIAN COLLIER, ET AL.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Zack Hawhorn United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Jimmie Mark Parrott, Jr., formerly an inmate confined in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, brought the above-styled action.
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
Plaintiff was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis while incarcerated, but he made no subsequent payments during his incarceration toward satisfaction of the full $350.00 filing fee. Plaintiff has since notified the court of a change of address to a private address located in Splendora, Texas. Since plaintiff has been released from confinement, his ability to proceed in forma pauperis is now governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, on December 15, 2023, plaintiff was ordered to either pay the remainder of the full balance of the full filing fee, $350.00, or submit a new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis reflecting his current financial status after his release from confinement. Plaintiff's compliance was due on or before the expiration of fifteen days from the date of the order.
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).
As of this date, plaintiff has neither paid the $350.00 filing fee nor submitted a current Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to diligently prosecute this action. Accordingly, 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.