From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Foreman v. Bowles

United States District Court, N.D. Texas
Mar 31, 2003
No. 3:01-CV-2117-G (N.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2003)

Opinion

No. 3:01-CV-2117-G

March 31, 2003


ORDER OF DISMISSAL


In October 2001, plaintiff, formerly confined in the Dallas County Jail, filed a civil complaint against Sheriff Jim Bowles and Detention Officer Cole. In November 2001, plaintiff answered a Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire. No process has been issued in this case.

On March 18, 2003, the Court mailed plaintiff findings and recommendation entered in this case. The findings and recommendation were returned as undeliverable with the notation "not in Dallas County Jail" Plaintiff has apparently changed addresses without notifying the Court. Such action violates a direct order of the Court that he "immediately advise the Court of any change of address and its effective date." ( See Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire at 1.) The Court, furthermore, admonished plaintiff that a failure to notify the Court of a change in address "may result in the dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute." ( See id.)

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (prisoner action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). This authority flows from a court's inherent power to control its docket, prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases, and avoid congested court calendars. Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Order within the Court's questionnaire by fading to notify the Court of his change of address. Accordingly, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

JUDGMENT

This action came on for consideration by the Court, and the issues having been duly considered and a decision duly rendered,

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:

1. Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.41(b).

2. The Clerk shall transmit a true copy of this Judgment and the Order of Dismissal to plaintiffs last known address.


Summaries of

Foreman v. Bowles

United States District Court, N.D. Texas
Mar 31, 2003
No. 3:01-CV-2117-G (N.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2003)
Case details for

Foreman v. Bowles

Case Details

Full title:DONALD RAY FOREMAN, ID # 01048361, Plaintiff, vs. JIM BOWLES, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Texas

Date published: Mar 31, 2003

Citations

No. 3:01-CV-2117-G (N.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2003)

Citing Cases

Wilson v. Texas Civil Commitment Center Facility Director

Day, 560 Fed.Appx. at 319 . It is important to note, however, that “[t]he ‘injury requirement is not…

Thompson v. Rowe

Specifically, Thompson “must demonstrate that the lack of access has prevented him from filing or caused him…