Opinion
Civil Action 24-0159
07-22-2024
STEVEN DEAN SEPULVADO, JR. v. DANIEL THOMAS, ET AL.
SECTION P
JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Kayla Dye McClusky United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Steven Dean Sepulvado, Jr., who proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this proceeding on approximately January 29, 2024, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He names the following defendants: Chief of Police Daniel Thomas, Warden Berlin Sweet, Lieutenant Jesse W. Branam, Brennen Jones, Parole Officer Ronald Lodrigue, and Sheriff Aarron Mitchel.
This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636, and the standing orders of the Court.
A district court may dismiss an action based on a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with a court order. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). A court possesses the inherent authority to dismiss the action sua sponte on this basis. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). “The power to invoke this sanction is necessary to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the [d]istrict [c]ourts.” Id.
On February 23, 2024, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to amend his Complaint, remedy certain deficiencies, and provide specific information. [doc. # 6]. The undersigned cautioned that the Court may dismiss Plaintiff's lawsuit if he failed to comply. Id. Plaintiff's deadline to comply passed, and Plaintiff did not file an amended pleading.
On April 19, 2024, the Clerk of Court dismissed this action because Plaintiff failed to “apprise the court of a change of [his] mailing address[.]” [doc. # 10]. On May 15, 2024, after Plaintiff updated his address, the Court re-opened this proceeding, directed the Clerk of Court to send Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet and the February 2024 Order to Amend, and ordered Plaintiff to comply with the Order to Amend no later than June 17, 2024. [doc. # 14]. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended pleading.
Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff Steven Dean Sepulvado, Jr.'s Complaint, [doc. # 1], be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 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. A party may respond to another party's objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of any objections or response to the district judge at the time of filing.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the proposed legal conclusions reflected in this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days following the date of its service, or within the time frame authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association , 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996).