From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Quick v. Edwards

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Aug 3, 2005
No. 3:05-CV-1151-L (N.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2005)

Opinion

No. 3:05-CV-1151-L.

August 3, 2005


FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an Order of the Court in implementation thereof, subject cause has previously been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:

I. BACKGROUND

On June 3, 2005, plaintiff filed a standard form used in actions arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that names two Assistant District Attorneys as defendants. No process has been issued in this case. On June 10, 2005, the Court issued a Notice of Deficiency and Order wherein it notified plaintiff that he had not paid the requisite filing fee or submitted a request to proceed in forma pauperis. It granted him twenty days to cure the deficiency and warned him that the failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. To date, plaintiff has filed nothing further in this case. Nor has he paid the requisite filing fee.

II. INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to dismiss sua sponte an action for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). This authority flows from a court's inherent power to control its docket, prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases, and avoid congested court calendars. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Order of June 10, 2005, that he correct the noted deficiency within twenty days. He has neither submitted a request to proceed in forma pauperis nor paid the filing fee in this action. Such failures indicate that he has no current intention to proceed with this case. Accordingly, the Court should dismiss this action.

III. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).


Summaries of

Quick v. Edwards

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Aug 3, 2005
No. 3:05-CV-1151-L (N.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2005)
Case details for

Quick v. Edwards

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN W. QUICK, ID # 1243617, Plaintiff, v. JESSICA EDWARDS, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

Date published: Aug 3, 2005

Citations

No. 3:05-CV-1151-L (N.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2005)