Opinion
Civil Action 2:21-CV-109
07-01-2021
JAMES SCHORSCH, Plaintiff, v. EVELYN CASTROL, et al, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Jason B. Libby, United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff filed this prisoner civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 28, 2021. (D.E. 1). Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis along with a copy of his prisoner trust fund account statement, which showed Plaintiff had $1, 423.87 in his account. (D.E. 2 and D.E. 3). On June 8, 2021, the undersigned entered an Order to Show Cause, ordering Plaintiff to either pay the $402.00 filing fee or to show cause why he is unable to pay the filing fee. (D.E. 6). Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to pay the filing fee or adequately show cause why he was unable to do so would result in his case being dismissed. (D.E. 6). Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court's order and has not paid the filing fee.
Therefore, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's case be DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 1 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding district courts have the power to sua sponte dismiss a cause of action for failure to prosecute).
SO ORDERED. 2
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to each party or counsel. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of the Memorandum and Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the United States Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and Article IV, General Order No. 2002-13, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). 3