Marshall v. Jackson et al

Filing 37

ORDER re 36 Report and Recommendations - The unopposed Report and Recommendation 36 is adopted as the opinion of the Court.This action is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III on 11/26/2024 (CO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
RANDY CARL MARSHALL

PLAINTIFF

V.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-CV-117-DPJ-ASH

DONALD JACKSON and LATISHA
SMITH

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

This pro se civil-rights case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [36]
of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris. The suit challenged the conditions of
Plaintiff Randy Marshall’s confinement while incarcerated at a state facility in Meridian,
Mississippi.
The Court ordered an omnibus hearing for September 25, 2024. Order [32]. Although
that Order was sent to Marshall’s Pascagoula address (and not returned as undeliverable), he
neither appeared at the hearing nor contacted the Court before the hearing to say he could not
attend. So, on September 25, Judge Harris entered a Report and Recommendation,
recommending dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with
Court orders. In his R&R, Judge Harris listed “at least seven occasions” when Marshall was
advised he risked dismissal of his case for failure to comply with Court orders. R&R [36] at 3.
The R&R also advised Marshall that he had 14 days to file an objection. Id. at 4.
Marshall has not filed an objection, and the time to do so has long passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b) advisory committee’s note (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy
itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.”).

1

As the R&R correctly states, dismissal for failure to prosecute is warranted on these facts.
R&R [36] at 3. The Court finds no clear error on the face of the record as to the R&R’s finding
that Marshall’s case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to comply with Court
orders.
The unopposed Report and Recommendation [36] is adopted as the opinion of the Court.
This action is dismissed without prejudice. A separate judgment will issue 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