IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CLAUDE ALLEN HAMILTON, )

Petitioner, )

vs. ) No. 3:05-CV-0888-P

 )

BILL HILL, District Attorney )

for State of Texas, )

Respondent. )

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

Petitioner is a former inmate of the Dallas County Jail. On April 29, 2005, the Court

received the instant action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 5, 2005, the Court issued

a Notice of Deficiency and Order. It therein notified petitioner that he had not paid the requisite

filing fee nor submitted a request to proceed in forma pauperis. It granted him twenty days to cure

the deficiency and warned him that the failure to do so would result in a recommendation that his

petition be dismissed for failure to prosecute. To date, petitioner has filed nothing further in this

case. Nor has he paid the requisite filing fee. 

II. INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

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

action 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, pre-

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00888-P Document 3 Filed 07/18/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 13
2

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

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

May 5, 2005, that he pay the filing fee or submit a request to proceed in forma pauperis within twenty

days. Accordingly, the Court should dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to follow an

order of the Court.

III. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Court dismiss the instant action

without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for petitioner’s failure to comply with an order

of the Court. 

SIGNED this 18th day of July, 2005. 

 ___________________________________

 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-00888-P Document 3 Filed 07/18/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 14