McKeithen v. Waddell

M.D. Louisiana

McKeithen v. Waddell

DecidedAugust 11, 2022

Docket3:21-cv-00112

StatusUnknown

This text of McKeithen v. Waddell (McKeithen v. Waddell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McKeithen v. Waddell, (M.D. La. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA TERRY ALICIA CIVIL ACTION McKEITHEN

VERSUS NO. 21-112-JWD-SDJ

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY AMINISTRATION OPINION After independently reviewing the entire record in this case and for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report dated July 20, 2022, (Doc. 6), to which no objection was filed; IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s cause of action is DISMISSED pursuant to Local Rule 41(b)(1), and this Court’s inherent power, for failure to prosecute. See Campbell v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 2021) (“Under Rule 41(b), a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order. It is well established that Rule 41(b) permits dismissal not only on motion of the defendant, but also on the Court's own motion.”); Cintron-Lorenzo v. Departamento de Asuntos del Consumidor, 312 F.3d 522, 525-26 (1st Cir. 2002) (“A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own docket, may dismiss a case sua sponte for any of the reasons prescribed in [Rule] 41(b).”). Judgement shall be entered accordingly. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on August 11, 2022.

S JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA TERRY ALICIA CIVIL ACTION McKEITHEN

VERSUS NO. 21-112-JWD-SDJ

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY AMINISTRATION OPINION After independently reviewing the entire record in this case and for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report dated July 20, 2022, (Doc. 6), to which no objection was filed; IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s cause of action is DISMISSED pursuant to Local Rule 41(b)(1), and this Court’s inherent power, for failure to prosecute. See Campbell v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 2021) (“Under Rule 41(b), a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order. It is well established that Rule 41(b) permits dismissal not only on motion of the defendant, but also on the Court's own motion.”); Cintron-Lorenzo v. Departamento de Asuntos del Consumidor, 312 F.3d 522, 525-26 (1st Cir. 2002) (“A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own docket, may dismiss a case sua sponte for any of the reasons prescribed in [Rule] 41(b).”). Judgement shall be entered accordingly. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on August 11, 2022.

S JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

McKeithen v. Waddell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckeithen-v-waddell-lamd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack