Amuneke-Nze v. Crain

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

UCHECHI AMUNEKE-NZE a/k/a § ESTHER, § Plaintiff § § v. § Case No. 1:23-CV-00337-RP-SH § KELLY CRAIN and MARK TICER, § Defendants

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO: THE HONORABLE ROBERT PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Now before the Court are Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, filed March 28, 2023 (Dkt. 1), and Plaintiff’s Response to the Court’s Order for a More Definite Statement, filed May 19, 2023 (Dkt. 6). The District Court referred this case to this Magistrate Judge for Report and Recommendation as to whether the case should be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) pursuant to Rule 1 of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and the Court Docket Management Standing Order for United States District Judge Robert Pitman. Dkt. 4. In her Response, Plaintiff requested permission to file an Amended Complaint. Dkt. 6 at 2. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint by June 16, 2023, but she has not done so. Dkt. 8. A district court may dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or to comply with any order of court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). Because Plaintiff failed to abide by a Court Order and to prosecute her case by filing an Amended Complaint, the Court recommends that the case be dismissed. I. Recommendation This Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS this case without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). It is ORDERED that the Clerk REMOVE this case from the Magistrate Court’s docket and RETURN it to the docket of the Honorable Robert Pitman. II. Warnings The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987). A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after the party is served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations in the Report and, except on grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). SIGNED on June 20, 2023. Be SUSAN HIGHTOWER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE