Filed: Jul. 29, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 29, 2013
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ARTHUR J. BOYLAN, Chief Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a self-styled civil complaint, and an application by one of the Plaintiffs, Dannez Hunter, seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis , ("IFP"). (Docket Nos. 1 and 2.) The Court previously examined Plaintiffs' submissions, and determined that (a) their complaint was gravely deficient, and (b) they could not be excused from paying the filing fee for this action, unless co-Plaintiff In
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ARTHUR J. BOYLAN, Chief Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a self-styled civil complaint, and an application by one of the Plaintiffs, Dannez Hunter, seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis , ("IFP"). (Docket Nos. 1 and 2.) The Court previously examined Plaintiffs' submissions, and determined that (a) their complaint was gravely deficient, and (b) they could not be excused from paying the filing fee for this action, unless co-Plaintiff Ine..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ARTHUR J. BOYLAN, Chief Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a self-styled civil complaint, and an application by one of the Plaintiffs, Dannez Hunter, seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ("IFP"). (Docket Nos. 1 and 2.) The Court previously examined Plaintiffs' submissions, and determined that (a) their complaint was gravely deficient, and (b) they could not be excused from paying the filing fee for this action, unless co-Plaintiff Inez Hunter showed that she was eligible for IFP status. Therefore, in an order dated June 5, 2013, (Docket No. 9), the Court informed Plaintiffs that they must (a) file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies found in their original pleading, and (b) either pay the filing fee for this action, or else submit an IFP application by Plaintiff Inez Hunter. The order expressly advised Plaintiffs that if they did not satisfy both of those prescribed requirements by July 15, 2013, the Court would recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
The deadline for complying with the Court's last order has now expired. To date, however, Plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint, nor have they paid the filing fee or filed an IFP application by Inez Hunter. Indeed, Plaintiffs have not contacted the Court about this matter at all for several months. Therefore, the Court will now recommend, in accordance with the prior order, that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). See Henderson v. Renaissance Grand Hotel, 267 Fed.Appx. 496, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (unpublished opinion) ("[a] district court has discretion to dismiss an action under Rule 41(b) for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute, or to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any court order"); see also Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (recognizing that a federal court has the inherent authority to "manage [its] own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases").
Based upon the above, and upon all the records and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Plaintiff Dannez Hunter's application to proceed in forma pauperis, (Docket No. 2), be DENIED; and
2. This action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
