v. Batson et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 3 Complaint filed by Brian Keith Chisholm: IT IS RECOMMENDED that this complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, sua sponte, for failure to prosecute. Objections to R&R due by 12/14/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Hornsby on 11/24/09. (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 R I A N KEITH CHISHOLM VERSUS A N T H O N Y BATSON, ET AL. C I V I L ACTION NO. 09-1071-P J U D GE HICKS 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 Befo re the Court is a civil rights complaint filed in forma pauperis by pro se plaintiff B r i a n Keith Chisholm ("Plaintiff"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was received a n d filed in this Court on June 22, 2009. Plaintiff claims his civil rights were violated by p r i s o n officials while incarcerated in the Forcht Wade Correctional Center in Keithville, L o u i s i a n a. He names Anthony Batson, Jerry Goodwin, Susan Tucker, Major Specks, and C o l t Palmer as defendants. On September 15, 2009, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file, within 30 days of the service o f the order, an amended complaint. However, that order was returned to this Court on O c t o b e r 5, 2009 by the United States Postal Service marked "Not at this Facility - Return to Sen der ." To date, Plaintiff 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 Rules
o f 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.Ct. 1386 (1962); R o g e r s 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), parties a g g r i e v ed by this recommendation have ten (10) business days from service of this Report and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court, unless an e x t e n s io n of time is granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). A party may respond to another party's o b j e c ti o n s within ten (10) days after being served with a copy thereof. Counsel are directed to furnish a courtesy copy of any objections or responses to the District Judge at the time of f i l in g . A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n set forth above, within ten (10) days after being served with a copy shall bar t h a t party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the proposed factual f i n d i n g s and legal conclusions that were accepted by the district court and that were not o b j e c te d 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 24 th day o f November, 2009.
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?