Watkins v. Shreveport

Filing 8

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint filed by Bobby Wayne Watkins: 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 3/20/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Hornsby on 3/3/09. (crt,Cassanova, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA S H R EV E P O RT DIVISION B O B B Y WAYNE WATKINS VERSUS S H R E V E PO R T POLICE DEPARTMENT C I V I L ACTION NO. 08-1608-P J U D GE STAGG M A G I S T R A T E 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 Bobby Wayne Watkins ("Plaintiff"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This c o m p l a in t was received and filed in this Court on October 27, 2008. He names the Shre vepo rt Police Department as defendant. On January 9, 2009, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file, within 30 days of the s e r v ic e of the order, an amended complaint. How e v e r , that order was returned to this Cou rt on January 20, 2009 by the United States Postal Service marked "RTS." To date, Pla intif f has not informed this Court of his new address. 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 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 Co 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 t h e r e o f. 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 s h a l l 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). T H U S DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, at Shreveport, Louisiana, on this 3 r d d a y of March, 2009.

Page 2 of 2