IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CHARLES RUBEN, #05087957, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 3:05-CV-2429-R

)

DALLAS COUNTY JAIL, )

Defendant. )

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 District Court in

implementation thereof, this cause has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The

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

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Type of Case: This is a civil rights action brought by a county inmate pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983.

Parties: At the time of filing this action, Plaintiff was an inmate incarcerated at the

Dallas Count Jail. His whereabouts are presently unknown. Defendant is the Dallas County Jail.

The Court did not issue process in this case.

Findings and Conclusions: On January 9, 2006, the Court issued a notice of deficiency

and order to Plaintiff. The order notified Plaintiff that he had neither paid the filing fee nor

submitted a proper request to proceed in forma pauperis. The order directed Plaintiff to cure the

deficiency within thirty days and cautioned him that failure to comply with the order would

result in a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

As of the date of this recommendation, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the deficiency

order. Nor has he kept this Court appraised of his address change. The Court is not required to

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02429-R Document 5 Filed 02/23/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID 18
2

delay disposition in this case until such time as Plaintiff provides his current address.

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, 82 S.Ct. 1386 (1962)). 

Plaintiff has been given ample opportunity to comply with the deficiency order. He has

refused or declined to do so. Moreover, he has failed to keep the court appraised of his address

change. Therefore, this action should be dismissed for lack of prosecution.

RECOMMENDATION:

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without

prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

A copy of this recommendation will be mailed to Plaintiff.

Signed this 22nd day of February, 2006.

_____________________________________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02429-R Document 5 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID 19
3

NOTICE

In the event that you wish to object to this recommendation, you are hereby notified that

you must file your written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of this

recommendation. Pursuant to Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir.

1996) (en banc), a party's failure to file written objections to these proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law within such ten-day period may bar a de novo determination by the district

judge of any finding of fact or conclusion of law and shall bar such party, except upon grounds

of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected to proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law accepted by the district court.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02429-R Document 5 Filed 02/23/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID 20