1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

JAIME ALEJANDRO ESCARSEGA,

#330334

VS. 

OFFICER FRY

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23cv898

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se Plaintiff Jaime Alejandro Escarsega filed the above-styled and numbered complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint was referred to the undersigned United States 

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

of the case 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.

Mail that was sent to Plaintiff was returned and marked, “Return to Sender-Not Deliverable 

as Addressed-Unable to Forward” and “Refused-Not in Custody.” (Dkt. #7). It is Plaintiff’s 

responsibility to notify the Clerk of the Court of his new address. See Eastern District of Texas 

Local Rule CV-11(d). Plaintiff has not updated his address with the Court; accordingly, he has 

failed to prosecute his case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

The exercise of the power to dismiss for failure to prosecute is committed to the sound 

discretion of the court and appellate review is confined solely in whether the court’s discretion was 

abused. Green v. Forney Eng’g Co., 589 F.2d 243, 247 (5th Cir. 1979); Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. 

Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978). Not only may a district court dismiss for want 

of prosecution upon motion of a defendant, but it may also, sua sponte, dismiss an action whenever 

necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Anthony v. Marion Cnty. 

Case 4:23-cv-00898-ALM-KPJ Document 8 Filed 11/29/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 18
2

Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980). The present case should be dismissed as Plaintiff 

has failed to prosecute the case.

RECOMMENDATION

It is therefore recommended that the case be dismissed without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(b). 

Within fourteen 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 unobjectedto 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. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 

79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superceded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).

Case 4:23-cv-00898-ALM-KPJ Document 8 Filed 11/29/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 19