Jones v. Taylor et al

Filing 7

RULING re 5 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint filed by Charles Edward Jones, Jr. On April 27, 2015, the copy of the Report and Recommendation which was mailed to Plaintiff at the Catahoulaa Correctional Center was returned with the notation Inmate not found. [Doc. No. 6]. Under Local Rule 41.3, [t]he failure of a[]... pro se litigant to promptly notify the court in writing of an address change may be considered cause for dismissal for failure to prosecute when a notice is r eturned to the court for the reason of an incorrect address and no correction is made to the address for a period of 30 days. In this case, the copy of the Report and Recommendation was returned to the Court, on April 27, 2015, and the thirty-day p eriod has long since expired. As of this date, Plaintiff has made no further contact with the Court. Thus, for these reasons, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Local Rule 41.3. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 6/17/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
CHARLES EDWARD JONES, JR.
LA. DOC #609011
VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-cv-0456
SECTION P
JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

R. H. TAYLOR, M.D., ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES
RULING

Pro se Plaintiff Charles Edward Jones, Jr., filed the instant civil rights complaint pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. §1983. On April 20, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
[Doc. No. 5] , recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failing to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
On April 27, 2015, the copy of the Report and Recommendation which was mailed to
Plaintiff at the Catahoulaa Correctional Center was returned with the notation “Inmate not found.”
[Doc. No. 6].
Under Local Rule 41.3, “[t]he failure of a[] . . . pro se litigant to promptly notify the court
in writing of an address change may be considered cause for dismissal for failure to prosecute when
a notice is returned to the court for the reason of an incorrect address and no correction is made to
the address for a period of 30 days.” In this case, the copy of the Report and Recommendation was
returned to the Court, on April 27, 2015, and the thirty-day period has long since expired. As of this
date, Plaintiff has made no further contact with the Court.

Thus, for these reasons, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Local Rule
41.3.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 17th day of June, 2015.

2