From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Simon v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Feb 24, 2020
CIVIL CASE NO. 3:19-CV-2891-D-BK (N.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2020)

Opinion

CIVIL CASE NO. 3:19-CV-2891-D-BK

02-24-2020

KEITH RENARD SIMON, #48131-177, PETITIONER, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT.


FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this case was referred to the United States magistrate judge for case management, including the issuance of findings and a recommended disposition. For the reasons that follow, this action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order and for want of prosecution.

On December 16, 2019, the Court issued a deficiency order, which directed Petitioner to (1) complete and return a form petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and (2) pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 7. The order also warned Petitioner that his "failure to comply [. . .] may result in the dismissal of this case for want of prosecution." Doc. 7 at 2. The deadline for Petitioner's response was January 23, 2020. Id. As of the date of this recommendation, however, Petitioner has not responded to the Court's deficiency order, nor has he sought an extension of time to do so.

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). "This authority flows from the court's inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases." Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)).

Petitioner has been given ample opportunity to respond to the Court's order. He has impliedly refused or declined to do so. Consequently, this action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order and for lack of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) (an involuntary dismissal "operates as an adjudication on the merits," unless otherwise specified).

SO RECOMMENDED on February 24, 2020.

/s/_________

RENÉE HARRIS TOLIVER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is made, the basis for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections to 14 days).


Summaries of

Simon v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Feb 24, 2020
CIVIL CASE NO. 3:19-CV-2891-D-BK (N.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2020)
Case details for

Simon v. United States

Case Details

Full title:KEITH RENARD SIMON, #48131-177, PETITIONER, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Date published: Feb 24, 2020

Citations

CIVIL CASE NO. 3:19-CV-2891-D-BK (N.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2020)