Case ID: f-appx_247/html/0565-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kevin Dale MANNING, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CHERAMIE BROTHERS BO TRUC; United States Coast Guard, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-30393
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 14, 2007.
    
      Kevin Dale Manning, pro se.
    Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The pro se plaintiff-appellant, Kevin Dale Manning, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his maritime action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for the plaintiffs failure to prosecute. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir.1988). The district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute on its own initiative, without any motion from the opposing party. Id. Rule 41(b) dismissals are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id.; Rogers v. Kroger Co., 669 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir.1982).

Because the district court’s dismissal was without prejudice and because the record contains no indication that — and the plaintiff does not contend that — any applicable statute of limitations has run since the filing of the complaint, see Hawkins v. McHugh, 46 F.3d 10, 12 (5th Cir.1995), the plaintiff has suffered no prejudicial harm from the dismissal. See McCullough, 835 F.2d at 1127 (“In such circumstances trial courts must be allowed leeway in the difficult task of keeping their dockets moving.”). The district court dismissed the action after the plaintiff failed to establish good cause why no action had been taken in the case and after due notice to the plaintiff to show cause had been provided. Under these circumstances, the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs case without prejudice was not an abuse of discretion.

For these reasons, we AFFIRM.

The plaintiffs motion to supplement the record is DENIED AS MOOT. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.