United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
M. DOUGLAS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dane Peake, filed the instant federal civil action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named the following defendants:
Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff Daniel Edwards; Tangipahoa Parish
Jail Administrator Hellery Green; and Health Services
Administrator Stephenie Graham. In this lawsuit, plaintiff
claimed that he was denied adequate medical care while
incarcerated at the Tangipahoa Parish Jail.
Court's Local Rules provide: “Each attorney and pro
se litigant has a continuing obligation promptly to notify
the court of any address or telephone number change.”
Local Rule 11.1. It is clear that plaintiff was in fact aware
of that obligation, in that his complaint included the
following declaration: “I understand that if I am
released or transferred, it is my responsibility to keep the
Court informed of my whereabouts and failure to do so may
result in this action being dismissed with
prejudice.” Plaintiff has failed to meet that
obligation, and his current whereabouts are unknown.
this Court's Local Rules further provide:
The failure of an attorney or pro se litigant to notify the
court of a current e-mail or postal address may be considered
cause for dismissal for failure to prosecute when a notice is
returned to the court because of an incorrect address and no
correction is made to the address for a period of 35 days
from the return.
Rule 41.3.1. More than thirty-five days ago, mail sent to
plaintiff at the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center, his address
of record, was returned by the United States Postal Service
as undeliverable because he was no longer incarcerated at
light of the foregoing, it is appropriate to dismiss
plaintiff's complaint for want of prosecution. The
authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a
plaintiff's action because of failure to prosecute is
clear. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1962);
McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126 (5th Cir.
1988). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically
provide that a court may, in its discretion, dismiss a
plaintiff's action for failure to prosecute or for
failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
or any order of the court and that such a dismissal is
considered to be an adjudication on the merits. Fed.R.Civ.P.
41(b). The Court's power to dismiss for want of
prosecution should be used sparingly, although it may be
exercised sua sponte whenever necessary to achieve
the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Ramsay
v. Bailey, 531 F.2d 706, 707 (5th Cir. 1976).
plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court need only
consider his conduct in determining whether dismissal is
proper under Rule 41(b). Here, plaintiff has failed to
provide the Court with his current address despite being
aware of his obligation to do so, and mail sent to him at his
address of record has been returned as undeliverable. Due
solely to plaintiff's failure, his whereabouts are
unknown, and this Court has no way to contact him in order to
schedule a preliminary conference or to otherwise advance his
case on the docket. Accordingly, his complaint should be
dismissed for failure to prosecute.
therefore RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs
complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for
failure to prosecute.
party's failure to file written objections to the
proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a
magistrate judge's report and recommendation within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar
that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from
attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual
findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district
court, provided that the party has been served with notice
that such consequences will result from a failure to object.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Douglass v. United Services
Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en