Carradine v. Nichols et al

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 22 Report and Recommendations. Dismissing without Prejudice. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 6/5/18 (Copy of Order and NEF mailed to Plaintiff)(MGB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
CODY JARROD CARRADINE

VS.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-75-DCB-MTP

TONY NICHOLS and TRAVIS PATTON

DEFENDANTS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This cause is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Michael T.
Parker’s Report and Recommendation (docket entry 22), to which no
objections were filed by the petitioner. Having carefully reviewed
the Report and Recommendation, and applicable statutory and case
law, the Court finds the plaintiff’s case should be dismissed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because of the
plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with numerous orders of
the Court.
Plaintiff

Cody

Jarrod

Carradine

(“Carradine”)

filed

a

complaint on June 6, 2017, indicating that his address was Adams
County Sheriff’s Office, 306 State Street, Natchez, Mississippi
39120.

On October 31, 2017, the Clerk of the Court attempted to

mail an Order (docket entry 3) to Carradine at his address of
record.

The mail was returned as undeliverable. (docket entry

18).
The Plaintiff has a duty to advise the Court of his current
address.

In numerous orders, the Court informed Carradine that

his failure to advise the Court of his current address would be
deemed as a purposeful delay and a contumacious act that may result
in the case being dismissed sua sponte, without prejudice, and
without further written notice. (docket entry 22).

On January 2,

2018, Magistrate Judge Parker entered an Order to Show Cause,
directing Carradine to “show cause why the action should not be
dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s orders.” (docket
entry 21). Carradine failed to respond to the Order and has not
filed anything of record, or contacted the Court, in over four
months.
On January 22, 2018, Magistrate Judge Parker filed his Report
and Recommendation.

He opines that the Plaintiff has failed in

his obligation to prosecute his case and to comply with the Court’s
orders.

In cases such as this, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(b) allows a trial court to use discretionary authority to
dismiss

an

action

sua

sponte

for

the

plaintiff’s

prosecute or comply with any order of the court.

failure

to

See Link v.

Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); Larson v. Scott, 157
F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998).

The courts’ power to dismiss

complaints pursuant to Rule 41(b) “is necessary in order to prevent
undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to . . . clear
their calendars of cases that have remained dormant because of the
inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief . . . so as
to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link,
2

370 U.S. at 629-31; see also Lopez v. Arkansas County Indep. Sch.
Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978) (discussing trial court’s
Rule 41(b) discretionary authority). The plaintiff’s failure to
respond and prosecute this case is exactly the type of inaction
that warrants Rule 41(b) dismissal.
In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Parker
recommends

that

this

matter

be

DISMISSED

without

prejudice

pursuant to Rule 41(b).
Accordingly,
THE COURT HEREBY ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Parker (docket entry 22) as the findings and
conclusions of this Court, and dismisses this matter without
prejudice.
A final judgment shall be entered in accordance with Rule 58
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED, this the 5th day of June, 2018.

_/s/ David Bramlette________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3