Wade v. Louisiana State Penitentiary

Filing 7

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Freddie Wade: IT IS RECOMMENDED that this petition be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, sua sponte, for failure to prosecute. Objections to R&R due by 2/16/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Hornsby on 1/28/10. (crt,Cassanova, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA S H R EV E P O RT DIVISION F R E D D IE WADE VERSUS W A R D E N N. BURL CAIN C I V I L ACTION NO. 09-772-P J U D GE HICKS M A G IS 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 Befo re the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by pro se petitioner Fred die Wade, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This petition was received and filed in this Cou rt on May 8, 2009. Petitioner is incarcerated in the Louisiana State Penitentiary in An gol a, Louisiana, and he names Warden N. Burl Cain as respondent. Petitioner was ordered on June 10, 2009 to file, within 30 days of the service of t h e order, documentary proof that he exhausted his available state court remedies and a r e s p o n s e demonstrating that his petition is timely filed. To date, Plaintiff has not resp ond ed to the memorandum order. Accordingly; I T IS RECOMMENDED that this petition 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 fourteen (14) 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 fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal th e proposed factual findings and legal conclusions that were accepted by the district court and 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 28 th d a y of January, 2010.

Page 2 of 2