Thomas v. Caddo Parish et al

Filing 9

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint filed by Willie Earl Thomas: 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 7/23/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Hornsby on 7/6/09. (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 EARL THOMAS VERSUS H A R O L D PLAYER, ET AL C I V I L ACTION NO. 09-291-P J U D GE STAGG M A G IS T R A T E JUDGE HORNSBY

REPORT 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 Befo re the Court is a civil rights complaint filed in forma pauperis by pro se p l a i n ti f f Willie Earl Thomas ("Plaintiff"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint w a s received and filed in this Court on February 20, 2009. Plaintiff claims his civil rights were violated by prison officials while incarcerated at the Caddo Correctional Center in Shre vepo rt, Louisiana. He names Sgt. Harold Player, Deputy Francine Hall and the Ca ddo Parish Sheriff Office as defendants. Plaintiff was ordered on April 7, 2009, to file, within 30 days of the service of the order, an amended complaint. (Doc. 7). To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended com plain t. 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 6 th d a y of July, 2009.

Page 2 of 2