Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation

 of the United States Magistrate Judge Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MICHAEL ANTHONY PICKENS, 05017330, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 3:05-CV-652-N

)

LUPE VALDEZ, SHERIFF, ET AL. )

Defendants. )

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 is incarcerated in the Dallas County Jail. He filed this complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants are Sheriff Lupe Valdez, Dr. Oliver and Medical Technician Mrs.

Roselyn. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On

April 7, 2005, the Court sent Plaintiff a notice of deficiency. The Court informed Plaintiff that

failure to cure the deficiency within twenty days could result in a recommendation that this

complaint be dismissed. More than twenty days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to comply

with the Court’s order.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00652-N Document 3 Filed 06/15/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 9
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation

 of the United States Magistrate Judge Page 2

III. 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. 

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 June 15, 2005.

_____________________________________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00652-N Document 3 Filed 06/15/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 10
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation

 of the United States Magistrate Judge Page 3

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

The United States District Clerk shall serve a true copy of these findings, conclusions and

recommendation on Plaintiff. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), any

party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions and recommendation must serve and

file written objections within ten days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections

must specifically identify those findings, conclusions or recommendation to which objections are

being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. A

party's failure to file such written objections to these proposed findings, conclusions and

recommendation shall bar that party from a de novo determination by the District Court. See

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S. Ct. 466, 472 (1985). Additionally, any failure to file

written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within ten days

after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings

and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except

upon grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th

Cir. 1996) (en banc).

_____________________________________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00652-N Document 3 Filed 06/15/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 11