Opinion
Civil Action 1:21-CV-272
11-01-2022
ERIC WATSON v. BRYAN COLLIER, et al.,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHRISTINE L. STETSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, Eric Watson, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Bryan Collier, Steve Massie, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Darren Wallace, Mark W. Stiles Unit, John Doe, and Sammy Carl Nelson, Jr.
The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation for the disposition of the case.
Background
The above-referenced civil rights action was filed on May 14, 2021 (doc. # 1). On September 22, 2022, the undersigned entered an Order to Replead and an Order requiring Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners (doc. #s 6 & 7). Plaintiff received a copy of both orders on September 26, 2022 (doc. # 9). While Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on October 28, 2022, Plaintiff has failed to file a response to the order to replead.
Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th 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 Insurance Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962)).
Plaintiff has failed to respond to this court's order to replead, preventing the court from conducting screening as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff has thus failed to diligently prosecute this case. This case should be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Recommendation
This civil rights action should be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Objections
Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the magistrate judge's report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c).
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations contained within this report within fourteen (14) days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n., 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72.