Opinion
Civil Action 2:22-CV-00071
08-19-2022
JEROME JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. FABIAN SANCHEZ, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
JULIE K. HAMPTON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff filed this prisoner civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 7. 2022. (D.E. 1). Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis along with a copy of his prisoner trust fund account statement, which showed Plaintiff had $639.00 in his account. (D.E.s 7 & 8). On May 8, 2022, the undersigned entered an Order for Plaintiff to pay the filing fee. (D.E. 9). Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to pay the filing fee would result in his case being dismissed. (D.E. 9). The undersigned granted an extension to June 24, 2022 for Plaintiff to pay the filing fee. (D.E. 12).
Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court's Order and has not paid the filing fee.
Therefore, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's case be DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding district courts have the power to sua sponte dismiss a cause of action for failure to prosecute).
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to each party or counsel. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of the Memorandum and Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the United States Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), General Order No. 2002-13, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
A 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. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc).