Blaney v. Ovard

Filing 3

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE on case: The Court recommends that the District Court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for want of prosecution. Magistrate Judge Paul D Stickney no longer assigned to case. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Paul D Stickney on 1/31/2011) (twd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JERRY BLANEY, 1519297,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE NFN OVARD,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:10-CV-2364-P

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This cause of action was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the
provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b), as implemented by an order of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge follow:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this complaint alleging that Defendant violated his civil rights. Plaintiff did

not pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On December 7, 2010, the
Court sent Plaintiff a notice of deficiency. The Court informed Plaintiff that failure to cure the
deficiency within thirty days could result in a recommendation that this complaint be dismissed.
More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s order.
II.

DISCUSSION
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to dismiss an action sua

sponte for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order.

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
Page 1
of the United States Magistrate Judge

Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “This authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows
from the court’s inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition
of pending cases.” Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing
Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)). Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s
Order. Accordingly, his complaint should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that the District Court dismiss
Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Signed this 31st day of January, 2011.

_____________________________________
PAUL D. STICKNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
Page 2
of the 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).

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
Page 3
of the United States Magistrate Judge