Chambers v. Rice et al

Filing 49

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 47 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III on 11/26/2024 (cwl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
STAFFORD L. CHAMBERS

PLAINTIFF

V.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-CV-551-DPJ-ASH

RAY RICE, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

This conditions-of-confinement case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is before the Court on the
Report and Recommendation [47] of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris. Judge
Harris recommended dismissing Stafford Chambers’s claims for failure to prosecute after he
repeatedly failed to comply with Court orders and notify the Court of a change of address.1
Chambers has not objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has
passed. The docket also reflects that the Court mailed copies of two orders to Chambers’s lastknown address—an Order [40] setting an omnibus hearing and an Order [45] cancelling the
hearing and directing Chambers to show cause. Both Orders were returned as undeliverable, see
[44, 46] (mail returned), further confirming that Chambers has failed to keep the Court informed
of his current address.
This Court has the authority to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and failure to
comply with court orders under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and under its
inherent authority to dismiss the action sua sponte. See generally Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S.
626 (1962); Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030 (5th Cir. 1998); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d
1126 (5th Cir. 1988). The Court must be able to clear its calendars of cases that remain dormant
1

In previous Orders, the Court warned Chambers that a failure to keep the Court informed of any
change of address may result in dismissal. See Orders [3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 20, 21, 32,]; see
also Notice of Assignment [1-2] at 1.
1

because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the party’s seeking relief, 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 629–30.
The Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted as the
opinion of this Court. This case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate judgment will be
entered in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 26th day of November, 2024.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2