Bailey v. Prator et al

Filing 18

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint filed by Derrick Dewayne Bailey: IT IS RECOMMENDED that this complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, sua sponte, for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as interpreted by the Court and under the Court's inherent power to control its own docket. Objections to R&R due by 2/12/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Hornsby on 1/26/09. (crt,Cassanova, M)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA S H R EV E P O RT DIVISION D E R R I C K DEWAYNE BAILEY VERSUS S T E V E PRATOR, ET AL. C I V I L ACTION NO. 08-794-P J U D GE STAGG MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY R E P O RT AND RECOMMENDATION In accordance with the standing order of this Court, this matter was referred to the u n d e r s ig n e d Magistrate Judge for review, report and recommendation. S T A T E M E N T OF CLAIM B e f o r e the Court is a civil rights complaint filed in forma pauperis by pro se p l a i n ti f f Derrick Dewayne Bailey ("Plaintiff"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This c o m p l a i n t was received and filed in this Court on June 3, 2008. Plaintiff complains his civil rights were violated by prison officials while incarcerated at the Caddo Correctional C e n t e r in Shreveport, Louisiana. He names Steve Prator, Tommy King, Rick Farris and J o e Draper as defendants. On November 12, 2008, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file, within 30 days of the s e r v ic e of the order, an amended complaint. However, that order was returned to this Cou rt on November 18, 2008 by the United States Postal Service marked "RETURN TO S E N D E R -G O NE ." To date, Plaintiff has not informed this Court of his new address. A cc or di ng ly; I T IS RECOMMENDED that this complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT P R E J UD I C E, sua sponte, for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal R u l e s of Civil Procedure as interpreted by the Court and under the Court's inherent power to control its own docket. See Link v. Wabash Railroad Company, 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.C t. 1386 (1962); Rogers v. Kroger Company, 669 F.2d 317, 320-321 (5th Cir. 1983). O B J E C T IO N S U n d e r the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), p a r t ie s aggrieved by this recommendation have ten (10) business days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of C o urt, unless an extension of time is granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). A party may r e s p o n d to another party's objections within ten (10) days after being served with a copy ther eof . Counsel are directed to furnish a courtesy copy of any objections or responses t o the District Judge at the time of filing. A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions a n d recommendation set forth above, within ten (10) days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the p r o p o s e d factual findings and legal conclusions that were accepted by the district court a n d that were not objected to by the aforementioned party. See Douglas v. U.S.A.A., 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Page 2 of 3 T H U S DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, at Shreveport, Louisiana, on this 26 th d a y of January, 2009. Page 3 of 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?