IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

LOYDALE KIRVEN, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § 2:22-CV-00042-Z-BR

§

PARMER COUNTY DETENTION §

CENTER, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

TO DISMISS § 1983 CLAIM

 On February 28, 2022, Plaintiff Loydale Kirven initiated this action in the Western District 

of Texas. (ECF 1). Upon review, the matter was transferred to this Court on March 24, 2022. (ECF 

4). Plaintiff was mailed a notice of the transfer on its entrance, but said notice was returned as 

undeliverable. The undersigned then issued an Order requiring Plaintiff to inform the Court of his 

intent to proceed with this action on or before February 24, 2023. (ECF 9). 

As of this date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Order or attempted to communicate with 

the Court in any way. The Court has given Plaintiff ample opportunity to comply with its Order, 

yet Plaintiff has failed to follow the Court’s direct orders. 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. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 

1988); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. “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., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 

Case 2:22-cv-00042-Z-BR Document 11 Filed 02/27/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 27
2

626, 82 S. Ct. 1386 (1962)). The undersigned finds Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Court’s 

February 3, 2023 Order warrants dismissal. 

RECOMMENDATION

It is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United States 

District Judge that the Complaint, (ECF 1), filed by Plaintiff Loydale Kirven be DISMISSED.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE

The United States District Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Findings, Conclusions 

and Recommendation to each party by the most efficient means available.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

ENTERED February 27, 2023.

* NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT *

Any party may object to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. In the 

event parties wish to object, they are hereby NOTIFIED that the deadline for filing objections is 

fourteen (14) days from the date of filing as indicated by the “entered” date directly above the 

signature line. Service is complete upon mailing, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), or transmission by 

electronic means, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E). Any objections must be filed on or before the 

fourteenth (14th) day after this recommendation is filed as indicated by the “entered” date. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).

Any such objections shall be made in a written pleading entitled “Objections to the 

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation.” Objecting parties shall file the written objections 

with the United States District Clerk and serve a copy of such objections on all other parties. A 

party’s failure to timely file written objections shall bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds 

of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings, legal 

conclusions, and recommendation set forth by the Magistrate Judge and accepted by the district 

court. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), 

superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), as recognized in ACS Recovery 

Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, 676 F.3d 512, 521 n.5 (5th Cir. 2012); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 

276–77 (5th Cir. 1988).

Case 2:22-cv-00042-Z-BR Document 11 Filed 02/27/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 28