French v. Ulayyet

Filing 17

FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute her case, it is recommended that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver on 3/24/2011) (axm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
PATRICIA FRENCH,
Plaintiff,
v.

3:10-CV-2359-L-BK

ROULA M. ULAYYET,
Defendant.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to the district judge’s standing order of reference (Doc. 11), this cause is before
the undersigned for pretrial management. Defendant filed his Motion to Dismiss on January 10,
2011. (Doc. 12). Plaintiff was required to file her response, if she opposed the relief requested,
by January 31, 2011, but she did not do so. See Local Rule 7.1(e) (establishing deadlines for
filing responses to motions). On February 11, 2011, the undersigned warned Plaintiff that if she
failed to respond to Defendant’s motion, she risked dismissal of her case for failure to prosecute.
(Doc. 14). The Court then gave Plaintiff until February 28, 2011, to respond to the Defendant’s
motion to dismiss if she is opposed to the dismissal of her case. Id.
Again, Plaintiff failed to respond. Instead, on February 28, 2011, she moved for a
continuance so that she could attempt to retain counsel. (Doc. 15). The undersigned granted her
an extension until March 18, 2011, to respond to Defendant’s motion, but she has yet to respond.
Accordingly, based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute her case, it is recommended that this action
be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127

(5th Cir. 1988) (noting that the district court has the inherent authority to dismiss an action sua
sponte without motion by a defendant); FED . R. CIV . P. 41(b).
SO RECOMMENDED on March 24, 2011.

________________________________________
RENÉE HARRIS TOLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner
provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file
specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); FED . R. CIV . P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific
finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and
specify the place in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed
determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the
briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will
bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the
magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain
error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

________________________________________
RENÉE HARRIS TOLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2