Varnell v. Tucker

• Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana
• Decided: January 27, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-01329
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SHREVEPORT DIVISION

MATTHEW VARNELL CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-1329-P

VERSUS JUDGE DOUGHTY

WARDEN TUCKER, ET AL. 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 in forma pauperis by pro se plaintiff Matthew Varnell, (“Plaintiff”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was filed in this court on September 26, 2024. He is incarcerated at the Bayou Dorcheat Detention Center in Minden, Louisiana. Plaintiff names Warden Tucker, Detective Ferris, the City of Shreveport City Attorney, the Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Department, and Unknow Officers as defendants. Plaintiff was ordered on November 25, 2024, to file, within 30 days of the service of the order, an amended complaint (Doc. 8). To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 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 27th day of January 2025. Mark L. Hornsby U.S. Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2