Nicholas C. Johnson v. Bossier Parish Police Jury, Sheriff Julian Whittington, and Warden Robert Chavis

• Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana
• Decided: September 22, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00792
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SHREVEPORT DIVISION

NICHOLAS C. JOHNSON CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-792-P

VERSUS JUDGE HICKS

BOSSIER PARISH POLICE MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY JURY, ET AL.

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 in forma pauperis by pro se plaintiff Nicholas C. Johnson (“Plaintiff”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was received and filed in this court on June 5, 2025. Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Bossier Maximum Security Center in Plain Dealing, Louisiana, when he filed this complaint. Plaintiff names the Bossier Parish Police Jury, Sheriff Julian Whittington, and Warden Robert Chavis as defendants. On July 21, 2025, this court ordered Plaintiff to file, within 30 days of the service of the order, an amended complaint. However, that order was returned to this court on August 1, 2025 by the United States Postal Service marked “RETURN TO SENDER-No longer in our jail.” To date, Plaintiff has not informed this court of his new address. All parties have the responsibility of promptly reporting to the court and to all other parties any change in the mailing address. Failure to do so shall be considered cause for dismissal for failure to prosecute. See ULLR 41.3.

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 (5th 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

Page 2 of 3 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 22™ day of September 2025.

Mark L. Hornsby U.S. Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3