Shed v. Hathaway et al

Filing 9

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 & 4 Complaint filed by Willie Ray Shed: 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. Objections to R&R due by 5/4/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Hornsby on 04/16/09. (crt,Cassanova, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA S H R EV E P O RT DIVISION

W I L L IE RAY SHED, JR. VERSUS D O N HATHAW A Y , ET AL.

C I V I L ACTION NO. 08-1298-P J U D G E WALTER M A G I S T R A T E JUDGE HORNSBY

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION In accordance with the standing order of this Court, this matter was referred t o the undersigned Magistrate Judge for review, report and recommendation. S T A T E M E N T OF CLAIM B efo re the Court is a civil rights complaint filed in forma pauperis by pro se p l a i n ti f f Willie Ray Shed, Jr. ("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 August 28, 2008. Plaintiff is i n c a r ce r a t ed at the Federal Correctional Institution in Big Spring, Texas. He claims his civil rights were violated during his arrest and criminal trial proceedings. He n a m e s Sheriff Don Hathaway, Officer Jason Brook, Officer Jerry Oglee, the Caddo P a r i s h Sherif Department, Assistant District Attorney Edward M. Brossette and the S h r e v e p o r t Police Department as defendants.

P l a i n ti f f was ordered on December 18, 2008, to file, within 30 days of the s e r v ic e of the order, an amended complaint. (Doc. 8). To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly; 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 F e d e r a l Rules of Civil Procedure as interpreted by the Court and under the Court's i n h e r e n t power to control its own docket. See Link v. Wabash Railroad Company, 3 7 0 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386 (1962); Rogers v. Kroger Company, 669 F.2d 317, 320-32 1 (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 o f this Report and Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court, unless an extension of time is granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). A party may respond to another party's objections within ten (10) days after being s e r v e d with a copy thereof. Counsel are directed to furnish a courtesy copy of any o b j e c ti o n s or responses to the District Judge at the time of filing. A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, c o n c l u s io n s and recommendation set forth above, within ten (10) days after being s e r v e d with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from Page 2 of 3

a t t ac k i n g on appeal the proposed factual findings and legal conclusions that were a c c e p t e d by the district court and that were not objected to by the aforementioned par ty. See Douglas v. U.S.A.A., 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). T H U S DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, at Shreveport, Louisiana, on t h i s1 6 t h day of April, 2009.

Page 3 of 3