Opinion
CIVIL 1:23-CV-00057
08-09-2023
DASHONE MARCEL REYNOLDS #704241, Plaintiff v. MARCUS MYERS ET AL, Defendants
SEC P
CHIEF JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOSEPH H. L. PEREZ-MONTES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is a civil rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed by pro se Plaintiff Dashone Marcel Reynolds (“Reynolds”). Reynolds is incarcerated at the B. B. Rayburn Correctional Center in Angie, Louisiana. He names as Defendants Warden Marcus Myers and Deputy Warden Keith Turner.
Because Raymond has failed to comply with the Court's Order to amend, the Complaint should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I. Background
Raymond alleges that Defendants “tampered with” his legal mail when he arrived at the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center. ECF No. 3 at 3. He informed a deputy that he was missing certain items but was “denied administrative relief.” Id.
Raymond also alleges that his hair was cut despite his intake sheet indicating he was Muslim. Id.
Raymond was ordered to amend his Complaint to provide additional details and facts in support of his claims. ECF No. 19.
II. Law and Analysis
A district court may dismiss an action for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or to comply with any order. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). The dismissal may occur upon the motion of the Defendant or the Court's own motion. The authority to dismiss sua sponte is provided to “achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases”; to “prevent undue delays”; and to “avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962); see also Morris v. Ocean Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 248, 251 (5th Cir. 1984); Anthony v. Marion County General Hospital, 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980).
Reynolds was afforded 30 days within which to comply with the Order to amend the Complaint. ECF No. 19. More than 60 days have elapsed, and Reynolds has failed to comply or request an extension of time within which to do so.
III. Conclusion
Because Reynolds has failed to comply with the Court's Order (ECF No. 19), IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Complaint (ECF No. 3) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), a party may file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service, unless the Court grants an extension of time to file objections under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b). A party may also respond to another party's objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service of those objections, again unless the Court grants an extension of time to file a response to objections.
No other briefs may be filed without leave of court, which will only be granted for good cause. A party's failure to timely file written objections to this Report and Recommendation will bar a party from later challenging factual or legal conclusions adopted by the District Judge, except if the challenge asserts “plain error.”
SIGNED on Wednesday, August 9, 2023.