Opinion
1:23-CV-1074-DII
03-25-2024
ANTHONY O. WILSON, Plaintiff, v. ALLEVIATE FINANCIAL, LLC D/B/A TRIPOINT LENDING, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARK LANE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO THE HONORABLE ROBERT PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Plaintiff Wilson has failed repeatedly to comply with court orders. See generally Dkt. 29. Wilson-a licensed attorney and serial litigant with a history of not following this court's orders, Dkt. 22 at 2-3-has been well warned that failure to comply with orders, would result in a recommendation that the District Court dismiss this case. Dkts. 23, 29, 35.
On March 11, 2024, the undersigned directed Wilson and Defendant-for the third time- to file a joint proposed scheduling order, warning that failure to do so by March 21, 2024 would result in a recommendation to the District Court to dismiss this case for want of prosecution. Dkt. 35. Again, Wilson failed to comply.
A district court has authority to dismiss a case for want of prosecution or failure to comply with a court order. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998) (“A district court sua sponte may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with any court order.”). 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., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)). Such a dismissal may be with or without prejudice. Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878, 879-80 (5th Cir. 1996). A dismissal with prejudice is appropriate only if the failure to comply with the court order resulted from purposeful delay or contumacious conduct and the imposition of lesser sanctions would be futile. Id.; Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1190-91 (5th Cir. 1992).
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons stated above and for the reasons stated in the undersigned's February 1, 2024 Order and Report and Recommendation, Dkt. 22 at 2-3; February 27, 2024 Report and Recommendation, Dkt. 29; and March 11, 2024 Order, Dkt. 35; the undersigned RECOMMENDS the District Court DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's cause of action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The referral of this case to the Magistrate Court should now be canceled.
SERVICE
The undersigned directs the Clerk of Court to serve this Report and Recommendation by regular mail and by certified mail return receipt requested on Plaintiff at the address Plaintiff previously provided.
WARNING
The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battles v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this Report within 14 days after the party is served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations in the Report and, except upon grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985); Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).