Carpenter v. Chairman, Hinds County Election Commission

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 4/14/16. [copy mailed to plaintiff] (RRL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
QUINCEY B. CARPENTER
V.

PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00383-CWR-FKB

CHAIRMAN, MISSISSIPPI ELECTION
COMMISSION, HINDS COUNTY

DEFENDANT

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge F.
Keith Ball entered on March 21, 2016. Docket No. 17. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation recommends dismissing all claims for failure to prosecute.
Plaintiff filed this action on May 26, 2015, Docket No. 1, and the defendant answered the
complaint on November 18, 2015, Docket No. 9. On January 7. 2016, the Court set a telephonic
case management conference for February 10, 2016. Docket No. 10. Plaintiff failed to appear for
the telephonic case management conference and the Court entered a show cause order that was
mailed to plaintiff’s address in New Orleans, Louisiana. On February 11, 2016, plaintiff filed a
change of address and the show cause order was resent to the updated address; however, plaintiff
failed to respond to the show cause order by the March 11, 2016 deadline.
In a further attempt to give the plaintiff an opportunity to avoid dismissal of his claims,
the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation on March 21, 2016 and gave the
parties 10 days to file any objections. A copy of the Report and Recommendation was mailed to
plaintiff at the address listed on the docket sheet. The objections were due by April 4, 2016.
Plaintiff did not file any objections.

This Court has the authority to dismiss an action for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), and under its inherent authority to dismiss the action sua
sponte. See Link v. Wabash Railroad, 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835
F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). The Court must be able to clear its calendars of cases that
remain dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief, so as to
achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Link, 370 U.S. at 630. Such a “sanction
is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid
congestion in the calendars” of the Court. Id. at 630-31.
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders and it is apparent that plaintiff is no
longer interested in pursuing his claims. As the record demonstrates, lesser sanctions than
dismissal have not prompted “diligent prosecution” but instead such efforts have proven futile.
See Tello v. Comm’r. of Internal Revenue, 410 F.3d 743, 744 (5th Cir. 2005). Dismissal without
prejudice is warranted.
Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is adopted as the finding of this Court.
This matter shall be dismissed without prejudice and a Final Judgment will be entered on
this day in accordance with this Order.
SO ORDERED, this the 14th day of April, 2016.
s/ Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2