Williams v. Williams et al

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 19 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to obey Orders of the Court and for failure to prosecute. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Order, as required by Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 8/28/17 (PKS)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GAIL WILLIAMS

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL NO. 1:17-cv-116-HSO-JCG

BONNIE RENE WILLIAMS AND
JIMMY ODEL WILLIAMS

DEFENDANTS

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [19], AND DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT [1] WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [19]
of United States Magistrate Judge John G. Gargiulo, entered in this case on August
3, 2017. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to obey Orders of the Court and for failure to
prosecute. After due consideration of the Report and Recommendation [19],
Plaintiff’s Complaint, the record, and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that
the Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendation should be adopted as the
Order of the Court.
I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
On April 20, 2017, Plaintiff Gail Williams (“Plaintiff”), acting pro se, filed her
Complaint [1] seeking damages from Defendants Bonnie Rene Williams and Jimmy
Odel Williams (“Defendants”), primarily for stealing her inheritance through fraud.
Compl. [1] at 3. As fully set forth in the Report and Recommendation, on June 1,

2017, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address [12] which reflected that her
current address is P.O. Box 226, Biloxi, Mississippi, indicating that she was located
within the Southern District of Mississippi. R. & R. [19] at 1.
On June 20, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order setting a screening
hearing for July 5, 2017, to determine whether the Court had jurisdiction over this
case and whether any portion of Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Id. at 1-2. The Order was sent via certified mail to Plaintiff,
and the Acknowledgment of Receipt [16] of that Order was filed on June 23, 2017.
Id. Plaintiff did not appear at the screening hearing.
On July 5, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order to Show Cause [17],
ordering Plaintiff to file a written response on or before July 19, 2017,
showing cause why her (1) failure to appear at the screening hearing
and (2) failure to abide by the Court’s numerous Orders requiring her to
keep the Court apprised of her current address should not result in
dismissal of this suit for failure to prosecute.
Order to Show Cause [17] at 1. The Order warned Plaintiff that failure to comply
would result in “an immediate recommendation to the District Judge that this case
be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” Id.
The Order was sent via certified mail to Plaintiff, and the Acknowledgment of
Receipt [18] of that Order was filed on July 7, 2017. To date, Plaintiff has not filed
a response.
On August 3, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and
Recommendation [19] recommending that “this case be dismissed without prejudice

2

for Plaintiff’s failure to obey Orders of the Court and failure to prosecute” and
advising Plaintiff that she had 14 days to file any objections to the Report and
Recommendation. R. & R. [19] at 3. The Report and Recommendation was sent via
certified mail to Plaintiff, and the Acknowledgment of Receipt [20] of the Report and
Recommendation was filed on August 9, 2017. To date Plaintiff has not filed any
objection to the Report and Recommendation.
II. DISCUSSION
Where no party has objected to a magistrate judge=s proposed findings of fact
and recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of it. 28 U.S.C.
'636(b)(1) (Aa judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which
objection is made@). In such cases, the Court applies the Aclearly erroneous, abuse of
discretion and contrary to law@ standard of review. United States v. Wilson, 864
F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).
Having conducted the required review, the Court concludes that the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is neither clearly erroneous nor
contrary to law, and that the Magistrate Judge thoroughly considered all issues.
The Report and Recommendation should be adopted as the opinion of the Court.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge properly recommended that
Plaintiff Gail Williams Complaint [1] be dismissed without prejudice. The Report
and Recommendation [19] will be adopted as the opinion of this Court.

3

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation [19], entered in this case on August 3, 2017, is
adopted as the opinion of this Court.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff Gail
Williams’ Complaint [1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to
obey Orders of the Court and for failure to prosecute. A separate judgment will be
entered in accordance with this Order, as required by Rule 58 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 28th day of August, 2017.

s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4