IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

SHELIA WALLACE

Plaintiff

v.

HIPPO INSURANCE SERVICES,

SPINNAKER INSURANCE 

COMPANY and CHRISTOPHER 

JONES

Defendants.

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

§

CASE NO. 1:23-CV-24

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DISMISSAL FOR WANT 

OF PROSECUTION 

This case is assigned to the Honorable Michael Truncale, United States District Judge, and 

was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for all pretrial matters pursuant to 

General Order 05-07. The case was removed on January 20, 2023, to the Eastern District of Texas, 

Beaumont Division from 128th District Court, Orange County, Texas. The clerk’s office mailed

the Notice of Case Assignment and Consent to Proceed Before U.S. Magistrate to Plaintiff on 

January 23, 2023. The court records indicate that the notice and consent mailed to the Plaintiff 

were returned as “undeliverable forwarding order has expired.” (Doc.# 8.) The record further 

indicates that the notice and consent were remailed to 1532 Woodland Drive, Pittsburg, CA 94565, 

the address listed by the U.S. Post Office as the forwarding address. 

On February 28, 2023, the court entered an Order Setting Civil Actions for Rule 16 

Management Conference (doc. #9) by certified mail return receipt. According to the U.S. Post 

Office the order was unclaimed and was returned. On March 31, 2023, the undersigned issued a 

Case 1:23-cv-00024-MJT-CLS Document 16 Filed 05/01/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

126
2

Notice of Impending Dismissal advising Plaintiff to provide the court with a proper mailing 

address and telephone number no later than April 30, 2023. The notice advised Plaintiff that 

failure to comply or advise the court of proper contact information for the Plaintiff could result in 

dismissal of her case. 

The court emailed the notice to Plaintiff at wallaceshelia@yahoo.com. The court also

mailed the notice, by regular and certified mail, to Plaintiff at 211 N. Farragut Ave. Orange, Texas 

77630, 1532 Woodlands Drive, Pittsburg, CA 94565 and 689 Stone Harbor Drive, Pittsburg, CA 

94565. The mail sent to Orange Texas was returned noting a forwarding address on Woodlands 

Drive, Pittsburg, CA. The certified mail sent to the Woodlands Drive address was returned as 

“unclaimed.” According to the U.S. Postal Service website, the certified mail sent to the Stone 

Harbor address was unclaimed and is being returned to the court. The regular mail sent to 

Woodlands Drive and Stone Harbor has not been returned. 

To date, Plaintiff has not advised the court of a proper address or telephone number by 

which to contact Plaintiff. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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). 

As of this date, Plaintiff has failed to comply as ordered and has wholly failed to provide 

the court with proper contact information. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to diligently prosecute 

this case. Therefore, this case should be dismissed, without prejudice, for want of prosecution 

pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). 

Case 1:23-cv-00024-MJT-CLS Document 16 Filed 05/01/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

127
3

Recommendation

This case should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

Objections

Within fourteen (14) days after service of the magistrate judge’s report, any party must 

serve and file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate 

judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding 

or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the 

place in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination is 

found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

magistrate judge is not specific.

Failure to file specific, written objections will bar the party from appealing the 

unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted by 

the district court, except upon grounds of plain error, provided that the party has been served 

with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United 

Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on 

other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen 

days). 

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

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

Case 1:23-cv-00024-MJT-CLS Document 16 Filed 05/01/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

128