Gonzales v. Blanchet

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION

AMY JETER GONZALES, ET AL CASE NO. 6:24-CV-01685 SEC P

VERSUS JUDGE JOSEPH

DAIVD BLANCHET, ET AL MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is a civil rights Complaint (42 U.S.C. §1983) filed in forma pauperis by pro se Plaintiffs Amy Jeter Gonzales (“Gonzales”) and Michael Craig Duncan (“Duncan”). Rec. Docs. 1, 7. Because Plaintiffs failed to comply with the Court’s Order regarding service of process (Rec. Doc. 10), the civil action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed suit alleging the violation of constitutional rights during an arrest. Rec. Docs. 1, 7. II. LAW AND ANALYSIS Plaintiffs were ordered to complete forms necessary for service of process and return those forms the Clerk of Court by March 14, 2025. Rec. Doc. 10. To date, the completed forms have not been provided to the Clerk of Court, so Defendants have not been served. A district court may dismiss an action for a Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with an order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The dismissal may occur upon the Court’s own motion. The authority to dismiss sua sponte is provided to “achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases”; to “prevent undue delays”; and to “avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962); see also Morris v. Ocean Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 248, 251 (Sth Cir. 1984); Anthony v. Marion County General Hospital, 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (Sth Cir. 1980). Plaintiffs failed to comply with the Court’s Order (Rec. Doc. 10), and have not requested an extension of time within which to comply. Therefore, the Complaint should be dismissed under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. II. CONCLUSION Because Plaintiffs failed to comply with the Court’s Order, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the civil action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), a party may file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service, unless the Court grants an extension of time to file objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). A party may also respond to another party’s objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service of those objections, again unless the Court grants an extension of time to file a response to objections. No other briefs may be filed without leave of court, which will only be granted for good cause. A party’s failure to timely file written objections to this Report and Recommendation will bar a party from later challenging factual or legal conclusions adopted by the District Judge, except if the challenge asserts “plain error.” THUS DONE in Chambers on this 8" day of September, 2025.

tlhe & Carol B. Whitehurst United States Magistrate Judge