Terral v. Ducote et al

Filing 90

MEMORANDUM RULING re 1 Complaint, filed by Brendan Matthew Terral. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 12/22/2017. (crt,Crawford, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
BRENDAN MATTHEW TERRAL

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-2366
Section P

VERSUS

*

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

WARDEN DUCOTE, ET AL.

*

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

RULING
This Section 1983 action was brought by Plaintiff, acting pro se, in September 2015. After
an initial review, Magistrate Judge Karen L. Hayes directed that the Complaint and Amended
Complaint be served on Defendants. Service was made, and the case has proceeded since that time.
On November 30, 2016, Defendants1 filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 68].
Following the filing of this motion, Plaintiff failed to update his address, and his lawsuit was
dismissed on May 11, 2017, for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff then filed a motion to re-open, which
was granted by the Court, and the Motion for Summary Judgment was re-set on Magistrate Judge
Hayes’ calendar. On June 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to the Motion for
Summary Judgment. [Doc. No. 84]. On September 28, 2017, Magistrate Judge Hayes issued a
Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 88] recommending that Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment be granted in part and denied in part.
On the same day, September 28, 2017, the Clerk of Court sent the Report and
Recommendation to Plaintiff at the Caldwell Correctional Center in Grayson, Louisiana, Plaintiff’s
1

The Court had previously granted a Motion to Dismiss three Defendants: Jackson Parish
Correctional Center, Jackson Parish Sheriff’s Department, and Jackson Parish. [Doc. No. 70].

last known place of confinement. The envelope containing the Report and Recommendation was
returned to the Clerk of Court on October 10, 2017, with a notation:
“RELEASED OR TRANSFERRED
RETURN TO SENDER”
Local Rule 41.3W, in pertinent part, provides:
The failure of an attorney or 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 the present case, Magistrate Judge Hayes’ Report and Recommendation was returned to
the Clerk of Court as undeliverable on October 10, 2017. As of this date, more than sixty days later,
Plaintiff has failed to advise the Court of his new address. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff
has failed to prosecute his case, and his lawsuit will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 41.3W for failure to
prosecute.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 22nd day of December, 2017.

2