Reed v. Pike County DA Office et al

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING 24 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Parker's Report and Recommendations are ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of this Court; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Final Judgment dismissing the action without prejudice will be entered of even date herewith. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 5/24/2019 (ND)

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

EXZAVION TREVON REED

PLAINTIFF

V.

CAUSE ACTION NO. 5:18-CV-3-DCB-MTP

KENNY COTTON and RHONDA M. ISAAC

DEFENDANTS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before

the

Court

is

the

Plaintiff

Exzavion

Trevon

Reed

(“Reed”)’s Complaint (Doc. 1) and Magistrate Judge Michael T.
Parker’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 24). Reed did not file an
objection.

Instead,

the

Report

and

Recommendation

mailed

was

returned as undeliverable. See Doc. 25. This is the second time
mail to Reed has been returned as undeliverable. See Doc. 23.1
After careful consideration concerning the proposed findings
and recommendations, the Court determines that they are correct
and should be adopted.
Magistrate

Judge

Parker

recommends

that

this

action

be

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) because Reed has failed in his obligation to

1

Magistrate Judge Parker ordered Reed to show cause why this action should
not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Doc. 22. The Order was mailed to
Reed and returned as undeliverable. Doc. 23.

prosecute his case and to comply with the Court’s orders. Doc. 24,
p. 2.
A district court may dismiss an action sua sponte for failure
to prosecute, for the purpose of achieving orderly, expeditious
disposition of cases, to prevent undue delays in disposition of
pending cases, and to avoid congestion. Sambe v. Gonzales, 2006 WL
3751153, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2006); see Carlisle v. United
States, 517 U.S. 416 (1996); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626
(1962); Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188 (5th Cir. 1992).
A court is not required to delay disposition of a case until a
petitioner decides to provide his current address. Sambe, 2006 WL
3751153, at *1; see Childers v. Bowles, 2002 WL 1489501, at * 1
(N.D. Tex. July 9, 2002).
A pro se prisoner’s failure to inform a court of his change
of address – and specifically, return of a pro se prisoner’s mail
to the court, as undeliverable – indicates a failure to meet his
obligation to press forward with the litigation and failure to
prosecute his case expeditiously. Sambe, 2006 WL 3751153, at *1;
see Edwards v. Harris County Sheriff’s Dept., 864 F.Supp. 633, 637
(S.D. Tex. 1994). Reed has failed to inform this Court of his
current address and therefore has failed to prosecute this action.
Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Parker’s Report
and Recommendations are ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of
this Court;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Final Judgment dismissing the
action without prejudice will be entered of even date herewith;
SO ORDERED this the 24th day of May, 2019.
_/s/ David Bramlette________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3