Cash v. Goodwin et al

Filing 11

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint filed by William J Cash: 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 9/17/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Hornsby on 8/28/09. (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 I A M J. CASH VERSUS J E R R Y GOODW I N , ET AL. C I V I L ACTION NO. 09-512-P J U D GE HICKS MAGISTRATE 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 William J. Cash ("Plaintiff"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was r e c e iv e d and filed in this Court on April 1, 2009. Plaintiff is incarcerated at the David W a d e Correctional Center in Homer, Louisiana. He names Jerry Goodwin, Ray Hanson, Lon nie Nail, Brad Rogers, Jackie Hamil, Antonio Turner, Earl Benson, Mayor Jane Doe, Tim oth y Q. Williams and John M artin as defendants. Plaintiff was ordered on June 12, 2009, to furnish the Clerk of Court in Shre vepo rt, Louisiana, within thirty (30) days after service of that order, one (1) copy of t h e complaint and two (2) completed summonses for each defendant in this action, for

s e r v ic e . [Doc. 6]. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court's memorandum ord er. 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 Repo rt and Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court, u n l e s s 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 served with a copy thereof. C o u n s e l are directed to furnish a courtesy copy of any objections or responses to the D i s t r ic t 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 ll 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 Page 2 of 3

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 2 8 th day of August, 2009.

Page 3 of 3