Opinion
Civil Action 5:21-CV-00074
08-10-2022
PABLO ENRIQUE URIBE, v. FEDERAL B PATROL CENTER OF ZAPATA COUNTY and POLICE OFFICER MAYA and ALL EMPLOYEES PRESENT AT THE TIME
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DIANA SONG QUIROGA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Pablo Enrique Uribe (TDCJ #0231070) brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging physical pain and emotional distress resulting from an improper fingerprinting procedure that purportedly placed him in immigration detention for three days. The Court granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 12.) That Order was returned as undeliverable to Plaintiff, and he was notified that he must provide a forwarding address for notification of service of process, or the action would be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Dkt. No. 16.) He provided an updated address (Dkt. No. 18), but mail to that new address was subsequently returned as undeliverable. (Dkt. No. 26.) On March 23, Defendant notified the Court that it had twice sent its disclosure to Plaintiff via USPS certified mail and first-class mail to his address of record, but had not received any return receipt. (Dkt. No. 28.) Defendant had also not received disclosure from Plaintiff. (Id.)
As such, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be DIMISSED for want of prosecution. See L.R. 83.4 (“A lawyer or pro se litigant is responsible for keeping the clerk advised in writing of the current address”). It is further recommended that all pending motions be TERMINATED. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff by any receipted means.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
Plaintiff may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. Objections to any part of this Report and Recommendation must be specific written objections filed within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). In order 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 aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).