Boyd v. Bernalillo County Detention Center

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 8 ; dismisses this action without prejudice, as more fully set forth in Order. Signed by Honorable Lee R. West on 9/7/2016. (kb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BOBBY BOYD,
Plaintiff,
No. CIV-16-708-W

vs.

BERNALILLO COUNTY DETENTION

CENTER,
Defendant.

ORDER

On August 1, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell issued a Report
and Recommendation in this matter and recommended that it be dismissed without

prejudice. Plaintiff Bobby Boyd, a pretrial detainee currently incarcerated in Bernalillo
County Metropolitan Detention Center, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, had been directed
by Magistrate Judge Purcell by Order dated July 11, 2016, either to submitan application
seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis^ or to pay the requisite filing fee of $400.00.
See Doc. 5 at 1. Boyd was advised that his failure to do by a date certain would result in
a recommendation by Magistrate Judge Purcell that this action be dismissed without
prejudice. See id. at 2.

While the Court has received correspondence from Boyd, see Docs. 9, 10, it has

received no paper wherein Boyd has objected to the Report and Recommendation^ or has
explained why he has not submitted an in forma pauperis application. Boyd has likewise

^The Clerk of the Court, at Magistrate Judge Purcell's direction, mailed Boyd a copy of an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. See Doc. 5 at 1-2.

^Boyd was advised of his right to object, s^ Doc. 8 at 2, and of the consequences of his
failure to do so. See id. at 2-3.

not paid the filing fee, sought an extension oftimetodo or shown good cause for his failure

to obey MagistrateJudge Purcell'sdirectivesand cure the deficienciesfound byMagistrate
Judge Purcell in Boyd's initial documents.

Every court has the inherent power in the exercise of sound discretion to dismiss
a cause for want of prosecution. E.g.. Link v. Wabash Railroad. 370 U.S. 626 (1962)

(inherent power vested in courts to manage own affairs so as to achieve orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases). Boyd's failure to comply with MagistrateJudge Purcell's
Order, coupled with the Court's inherent power to control its case load, warrants dismissal
of this action without prejudice. See Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents. 492 F.3d
1158, 1161 n.2 (10'^ Cir. 2007)(court may sua sponte dismiss case for failure to comply

with court's order); Reed v. Bennett. 312 F.3d 1190, 1195 (10'^ Cir. 2002)(court has
discretion to sanction party for failing to prosecute or to comply with local or federal
procedural rules); Rule 41(b), F.R.Civ.P. (courtmay dismiss action if plaintiff fails to comply
with court order).

Accordingly, the Court concurs with Magistrate Judge Purcell's suggested
disposition of this matter and, in its discretion,

(1) ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 8] filed on August 1, 2016;
(2) DISMISSES this action without prejudice; and

(3) because this case is dismissed, ADVISES Boyd that any papers hereafter
submitted will not be filed in this action,^

(a) unless such papers specifically address Boyd's failure

^Boyd is ADVISED that such papers will be returned to him by the Clerk of the Court.
2

(i) to comply with Magistrate Judge Purcell's Order, or
(ii) to timely pay the filing fee; or

(b) unless such papers are necessary to lodge and perfect an appeal of the
instant Order.

ENTERED this 7'^ day of September, 2016.

LEER. WEST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE