Opinion
2:21-cv-00211-JRG-RSP
02-03-2023
BRANDON ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. DCARO OAO, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ROY S. PAYNE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Brandon Robinson filed a complaint against defendant “DCARA OAO” on June 10, 2021, seeking “review” of an “Administrative Law Judge's action” in a claim for “disability benefits.” Dkt. No. 1. On the same day, Robinson moved to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 2. Shortly thereafter, the case was referred to the undersigned. Dkt. No. 3. No further action was taken in this case until June 27, 2022, when the Court ordered Robinson to “refile his complaint to include a jurisdictional statement and a properly named defendant, along with details concerning the action from which he is trying to appeal.” Dkt. No. 4. Other than the initial filing and motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Robinson has taken no additional action.
“Courts have an ‘inherent power' to dismiss cases for lack of prosecution. This power enables courts to ‘manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.' ” United States v. Amieva-Rodriguez, 905 F.3d 288, 289 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (affirming a district court's dismissal for failure to prosecute)). Because Robinson has failed to further prosecute his claims, the Court recommends that the claims should be DISMISSED without prejudice. In accordance with Campbell v. Wilkinson, the Court further recommends suspending the statute of limitations in this case for a period of sixty (60) days from date of final judgment. 988 F.3d 798, 801 n.1 (5th Cir. 2021) (explaining that “[w]here further litigation of [a] claim will be time-barred, a dismissal without prejudice is no less severe a sanction than a dismissal with prejudice, and the same standard of review is used.'”).
A party's failure to file written objections to the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report within 14 days bars that party from de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except on grounds of plain error, from appellate review of unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); see also Douglass v. United Ser vs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be filed in ECF under the event “Objection to Report and Recommendation [cv, respoth]” or it may not be considered by the District Judge.