Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-1187-P
12-01-2014
DEMETRIOUS B. SEAMSTER v. UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS
JUDGE HICKS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In accordance with the standing order of this court, this matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for review, report and recommendation.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Before the court is a civil rights complaint filed in forma pauperis by pro se plaintiff Demetrious Bernard Seamster ("Plaintiff"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was received and filed in this court on May 8, 2012. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Allen Correctional Center in Kinder, Louisiana. He names Unknown Defendants as defendants.
Plaintiff was ordered on June 17, 2014, to file, within 30 days of the service of the order, an amended complaint. (Doc. 15). To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.
Accordingly;
IT IS RECOMMENDED that this complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, sua sponte, for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as interpreted by the court and under the court's inherent power to control its own docket. See Link v. Wabash Railroad Company, 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386 (1962); Rogers v. Kroger Company, 669 F.2d 317, 320-321 (5th Cir. 1983).
OBJECTIONS
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), parties aggrieved by this recommendation have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court, unless an extension of time is granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). A party may respond to another party's objections within ten (10) days after being served with a copy thereof. Counsel are directed to furnish a courtesy copy of any objections or responses to the District Judge at the time of filing.
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation set forth above, 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 proposed factual findings and legal conclusions that were accepted by the district court and that were not objected to by the aforementioned party. See Douglas v. U.S.A.A., 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, at Shreveport, Louisiana, on this 1st day of December 2014.
/s/_________
Mark L. Hornsby
U.S. Magistrate Judg