FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ, Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to the standing order of reference dated February 26, 2013, this case has been referred for pretrial management, including the determination of non-dispositive motions and issuance of findings of fact and recommendations on dispositive motions. Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the case should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 29, 2012, one of the defendants removed this wrongful foreclosure action from state court on grounds of federal question jurisdiction. (See doc. 1.) On January 16, 2013, the Court entered a scheduling order that required the parties to file a joint status report concerning the status of settlement discussions by April 16, 2013.1 (See doc. 7.) On that date, the defendants filed a status report contending that the plaintiff had failed to confer with them and participate in the filing of the status report required by the scheduling order. (See doc. 6). On April 17, 2013, the plaintiff was ordered to show cause in writing no later than May, 1, 2013, why he failed to comply with the scheduling order. (See doc. 14.) No response was received.

On June 3, 2013, the Court noted the appearance of new counsel for one of the defendants and ordered the parties to file another joint status report as provided by the scheduling order. (See doc. 18.) On June 10, 2013, the defendants filed a status report again contending that the plaintiff had not conferred with them or participate in the filing of the report as ordered. (See doc. 19.) On June 13, the Court issued a second order to show cause for the plaintiff's failure to comply with the scheduling order and the June 3, 2013 order. (See doc. 20). The plaintiff and his counsel were ordered to appear in person at a hearing why they should not be sanctioned for failure to comply with the Scheduling Order and the June 3, 2013 order, and they were required to confirm their attendance at the hearing two days before.2 Id. Both the plaintiff and counsel failed to confirm their attendance for the hearing or to appear at the hearing. Counsel for the defendants advised that numerous telephone calls and emails to the plaintiff's counsel had not been returned. The plaintiff has filed anything in this case since January 7, 2013.

II. INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (§ 1983 prisoner action). This authority flows from a court's inherent power to control its docket, prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases, and avoid congested court calendars. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). The plaintiff has failed to comply with several court orders despite being specifically warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal of this action. Because he failed to follow a court order or otherwise show that he intends to proceed with his case, the plaintiff's case should be dismissed under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court.

III. RECOMMENDATION

This case should be dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court, unless the plaintiff shows cause in writing for his failure to comply with the Court's orders within the time for objecting to this recommendation, or by some other deadline set by the Court.