IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

TONDOM CLARK §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-260

UNKNOWN DEFENDANT §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, Tondom Clark, an inmate formerly confined at USP Beaumont, proceeding pro se,

filed this Bivens-type action1 against an unknown defendant. 

The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636 and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties

to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation

for the disposition of the case.

Background

This case was severed form Civil Action No. 1:22-CV-444 on July 12, 2023 (doc. # 1). On

July 14, 2023, the undersigned ordered the Clerk of Court to mail Plaintiff a copy of the form

complaint for a Bivens-type action and the form application to proceed in forma pauperis for

prisoners (doc. # 4). The order gave Plaintiff thirty (30) days upon receipt to re-file his complaint

and either pay the full filing fee of $402.00 or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Id. On July 31, 2023, a copy of the order was returned as undeliverable with the notation that

Plaintiff was no longer at USP Beaumont (doc. # 5). 

Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a 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

1

 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

Case 1:23-cv-00260-MJT-CLS Document 6 Filed 08/01/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 12
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, 629 (1962)). In the present case, Plaintiff has failed to update the court with his

current address and has prevented the court from communicating with him. 

Recommendation

This Bivens-type action should be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

Objections

Within fourteen (14) days after receipt 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 (14) 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.

2

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 1st day of August, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00260-MJT-CLS Document 6 Filed 08/01/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 13