Dakari Livsey-Aguil v. Caddo Correctional Center

• Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana
• Decided: September 30, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00646
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SHREVEPORT DIVISION

DAKARI LIVSEY-AGUIL CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-646-P

VERSUS JUDGE HICKS

CADDO CORRECTIONAL CENTER MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In accordance with the standing order of this court, this matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for review, report, and recommendation. STATEMENT OF CLAIM Before the court is a civil rights complaint filed by pro se plaintiff Dakari Livsey-Aguil (“Plaintiff”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was received and filed in this court on May 12, 2025. Plaintiff names the Caddo Correctional Center as defendant. On June 24, 2025, this court mailed to Plaintiff an order granting an extension until July 15, 2025 to correct the deficiency. The order was returned to this court on August 20, 2025 by the United States Postal Service marked RETURN TO SENDER-UNABLE TO FORWARD. To date, Plaintiff has not informed this court of his new address. Accordingly; IT IS RECOMMENDED that this complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, sua sponte, for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as interpreted by the court and under the court's inherent power to control its own docket. See Link v. Wabash Railroad Company, 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386 (1962); Rogers v. Kroger Company, 669 F.2d 317, 320-321 (Sth Cir. 1982). OBJECTIONS Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), parties aggrieved by this recommendation have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court, unless an extension of time is granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). A party may respond to another party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Counsel are directed to furnish a courtesy copy of any objections or responses to the District Judge at the time of filing. A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation set forth above, 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 proposed factual findings and legal conclusions that were accepted by the district court and that were not objected to by the aforementioned party. See Douglas v. U.S.A.A., 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, at Shreveport, Louisiana, on this 301 day of September 2025. Mark L. Hornsby U.S. Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2