Opinion
2:20-CV-252-Z-BR
07-13-2023
AMOS LOTT SIMS, Plaintiff, v. NATHANIEL J. NEAL UNIT, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS
LEE ANN RENO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, Amos Lott Simms, filed a complaint naming a series of defendants as parties. By Order dated November 22, 2022, the Court required Plaintiff to state his intention to proceed with this matter. (ECF 5). The Order was sent to Plaintiff but returned as undeliverable. (ECF 6). Since that time, Plaintiff has not attempted to communicate with the Court in any way.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons discussed herein, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge that the claims of Plaintiff be DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE
The United States District Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Findings, Conclusion and Recommendation to each party by the most efficient means available.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
* NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT *
Any party may object to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. In the event parties wish to object, they are hereby NOTIFIED that the deadline for filing objections is fourteen (14) days from the date of filing as indicated by the “entered” date directly above the signature line. Service is complete upon mailing, Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b)(2)(C), or transmission by electronic means, Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b)(2)(E). Any objections must be filed on or before the fourteenth (14th) day after this recommendation is filed as indicated by the “entered” date. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d).
Any such objections shall be made in a written pleading entitled “Objections to the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation.” Objecting parties shall file the written objections with the United States District Clerk and serve a copy of such objections on all other parties. A party's failure to timely file written objections shall bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, and recommendation set forth by the Magistrate Judge and accepted by the district court. See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), as recognized in ACS Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, 676 F.3d 512, 521 n.5 (5th Cir. 2012); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th Cir. 1988).