Richardson v. Alamo College District

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS recommending to DISMISS the case by Rayford Richardson. Signed by Judge Nancy Stein Nowak. (mailed on 9/20/11, by certified mail or forwarded electronically)(rf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

RAYFORD RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALAMO COLLEGE DISTRICT,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO.
SA-11-CV-0691 FB

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO:

Honorable Fred Biery
Chief United States District Judge
This report and recommendation recommends dismissing this case for failing to

comply with a court order and failing to prosecute. This case was initiated by plaintiff
Rayford Richardson by a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).1 Richardson
sought to sue the Alamo College District (the District) for the third time. Richardson
first sued the District in Cause No. SA-08-CV-54-FB. That case was dismissed on
summary-judgment. Richardson’s second lawsuit against the District—Cause No.
SA-10-CV-00447-FB—is pending before the district judge.
In response to Richardson’s motion to proceed IFP in this case, I directed
Richardson to complete a more detailed application and to provide additional

1

Docket entry # 1.

information to assist me in determining his entitlement to IFP status. I warned
Richardson that this case would be dismissed if he failed to respond to my order. I
directed Richardson to complete the application by September 5, 2011.
Richardson did not respond to my order. Because Richardson did not respond,
this case is appropriately dismissed for failing to prosecute this case and failing to
comply with my order.2
Recommendation. Consistent with my warning, I recommend dismissing this
case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with my order.
Instructions for Service and Notice of Right to Object/Appeal. The United
States District Clerk shall serve a copy of this report and recommendation on all parties
by either (1) electronic transmittal to all parties represented by attorneys registered as a
“filing user” with the clerk of court, or (2) by mailing a copy to those not registered by
certified mail, return receipt requested. Written objections to this report and
recommendation must be filed within 14 days after being served with a copy of same,
unless this time period is modified by the district court.3 Such party shall file the
objections with the clerk of the court, and serve the objections on all other parties. A

2

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (permitting the defendant to move for dismissal on grounds the
plaintiff failed to prosecute his case); Gonzalez v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 610 F.2d 241,
247 (5th Cir. 1980) (explaining that “a federal district court possesses the inherent authority
to dismiss an action for want of prosecution”).
3

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
2

party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions or
recommendations to which objections are being made and the basis for such objections;
the district court need not consider frivolous, conclusive or general objections. A
party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report shall bar the party from a de novo
determination by the district court.4 Additionally, failure to file timely written
objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in this
report and recommendation shall bar the aggrieved party, except upon grounds of
plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and
legal conclusions accepted by the district court.5
SIGNED on September 20, 2011.

_____________________________________
NANCY STEIN NOWAK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985); Acuña v. Brown & Root, 200 F.3d 335, 340 (5th
Cir. 2000).
5

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996).
3