Opinion
Civil Action 9:23-CV-40
03-28-2023
LATOYA PICKARD v. OFFICER CEFALU
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHRISTINE L STETSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, Latoya Pickard, a pre-trial detainee confined at Nacogdoches County Jail, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Officer Cefalu.
The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation for the disposition of the case.
Background
Plaintiff filed this complaint on February 15, 2023 (doc. # 1). On February 23, 2023, the undersigned ordered the Clerk of Court to mail Plaintiff a copy of the form application to proceed in forma pauperis for prisoners and the form complaint for a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (doc. # 7). The order also gave Plaintiff thirty (30) days to re-file her application to proceed in forma pauperis and her civil rights complaint as instructed. Id. More than thirty (30) days has passed, yet Plaintiff has failed to comply.
Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a 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 Insurance Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962)). Plaintiff has failed to comply with this court's order and has failed to prosecute this case.
Recommendation
This civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Objections
Within fourteen (14) days after receipt 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 (14) 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 Servs. Auto. Ass'n., 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72.
SIGNED.