Stephens v. Casiano

Full title: DENNIS E. STEPHENS, Plaintiff, v. FNU CASIANO, ET AL., Defendants.

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

Date published: Jan 5, 2016

No. 3:15-CV-3419-N (N.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2016)

Opinion

No. 3:15-CV-3419-N

01-05-2016

DENNIS E. STEPHENS, Plaintiff, v. FNU CASIANO, ET AL., Defendants.

PAUL D. STICKNEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause of action was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b), as implemented by an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge follow:

I.

Plaintiff filed this complaint in the Eastern District of Texas. On October 21, 2015, the case was transferred to this Court. Prior to transfer, Plaintiff was ordered to pay an initial filing fee of $108.44. Plaintiff failed to pay this fee. On November 4, 2015, this Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the initial filing fee within thirty days and informed Plaintiff that failure to pay the initial filing fee could result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's order.

II.

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 (5^th Cir. 1998). "This authority [under Rule 41(b)] 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 (5^th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)). Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's Order. Accordingly, his complaint should be dismissed for want of prosecution. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that the District Court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Signed this 5^th day of January, 2016.

/s/_________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall 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). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation where 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).