IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

DARCELL KEMP TAYLOR §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-cv-217

CLEVELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, §

ET AL.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Darcell Kemp Taylor, an inmate confined at the Beauregard Parish Phelps Prison

located in Dequincy, Louisiana, Texas, proceeding pro se, brings this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. 

The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate

Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

Discussion

On June 8, 2023, Plaintiff was ordered to pay an initial partial filing fee of $6.75. The copy

of the Order sent to Plaintiff at the address Plaintiff provided was returned to the court as

undeliverable on June 20, 2023. Plaintiff has failed to provide the court with his current address or

information necessary to contact him. 

FED.R.CIV.P. 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute

or for failure to comply with 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., 756 F.2d

399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962)). The orderly

and expeditious disposition of cases requires that if a litigant’s address changes, he has a duty to

inform the court of the change. Further, Eastern District of Texas Local Rule CV-11(d) requires pro

se litigants such as Plaintiff to provide the court with a physical address and keep the clerk advised

Case 1:23-cv-00217-MJT-CLS Document 5 Filed 06/22/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 20
in writing of a current address. The exercise of the power to dismiss for failure to prosecute is

committed to the sound discretion of the court. See Green v. Forney Eng’g Co., 589 F.2d 243, 245

(5th Cir. 1979).

By failing to provide the court with a current address at which he may be contacted, Plaintiff

has prevented the court from communicating with him and moving this case towards resolution. 

Plaintiff has therefore failed to diligently prosecute this case. Accordingly, this case should be

dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

Recommendation

The above-styled action should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. 

Objections

Within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge’s report, any

party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C).

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an

aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal

conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R.

CIV. P. 72.

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 22nd day of June, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00217-MJT-CLS Document 5 Filed 06/22/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 21