Case Information
*1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
RICK BEARD, )
Plaintiff, )
) v. ) No. 3:05-CV-1444-M
)
HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL NETWORK, )
Defendant. ) 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 District Court, this case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge follow:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
On July 20, 2005, Plaintiff filed this complaint against Defendant. On July 29, 2005, the Court sent Plaintiff a financial affidavit seeking information regarding his motion to proceed in forma pauperis . The order stated that failure to return the affidavit within twenty days could result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. More than twenty days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to return the affidavit.
Discussion: Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5 th 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., Ltd. , 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5 th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co. , 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386 (1962)). Plaintiff has *2 failed to comply with the Court’s Order. Accordingly, his complaint should be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the complaint be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Signed September 14, 2005.
_____________________________________ PAUL D. STICKNEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE *3 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 Plaintiff by mailing a copy to him by United States Mail. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions and recommendation must serve and file 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. A party's failure to file such written objections to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation shall bar that party from a de novo determination by the District Court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Additionally, any 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, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
