IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

HOWARD BRIDGES, JR., )

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) No. 3:05-CV-1187-G (BH)

) ECF

UNKNOWN DISTRICT/REGIONAL ) Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge

MANAGER, et al., )

Defendants. )

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an Order of the Court in implementation thereof, subject cause has previously been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:

I. BACKGROUND

In June 2005, plaintiff filed this civil action. On July 13, 2005, the Court granted him leave

to proceed in forma pauperis and sent him a Magistrate Judge’s Questionnaire (MJQ). On October

18, 2005, the Court sent plaintiff a second MJQ. It therein directed him to answer the questions

contained in that document and return the answers within thirty days. It warned plaintiff, furthermore, that “[f]ailure to file answers to the Questions may result in the dismissal of the action for

failure to prosecute.” To date, plaintiff has filed no response to the second MJQ. 

II. INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

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

sponte for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126,

1127 (5th Cir. 1988). This authority flows from a court’s inherent power to control its docket,

prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases, and avoid congested court calendars. Link

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01187-G Document 9 Filed 02/07/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 38
2

v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). Plaintiff has failed to comply with the order of the

Court that he file his answers within thirty days of the MJQ dated October 18, 2005. Accordingly,

the Court should dismiss his complaint.

III. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without

prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

SIGNED this 7th day of February, 2006. 

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation on all parties by mailing a copy to each of them. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), any

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

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

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01187-G Document 9 Filed 02/07/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 39