MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, Jr., Magistrate Judge.

A review of the record showed that the complaint was filed on July 31, 2012. Counsel for the plaintiffs was allowed to withdraw as counsel of record by the court's order dated May 14, 2013. Thereafter, on May 17, 2013, the court issued an order setting this matter for a status conference in person on June 27, 2013. The court's order was sent by regular mail and certified mail, return receipt requested to the plaintiff, Lawrence Isaac, Jr. The notices sent to plaintiff, Lawrence Isaac, Jr., by regular mail and certified mail were returned to the court with the notation "return to sender, not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward". The plaintiff, Lawrence Isaac, Jr., failed to appear at the status conference on June 27, 2013. Thereafter, the court issued a Rule to Show Cause for the plaintiff, Lawrence Isaac, Jr., to show cause on August 8, 2013 why his claim in this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or why appropriate sanctions should not be imposed against him for failure to appear for the status conference. The court's rule to show cause was sent to the plaintiff, Lawrence Isaac, Jr. by regular mail and certified mail. These notices were also returned to the court with the notation "return to sender, not undeliverable as addressed, unable to forward". The plaintiff did not appear at the rule to show cause on August 8, 2013. The court also notes that copies of other orders by the court and an order and judgment issued by the district judge in this matter and mailed to plaintiff, Lawrence Isaac, Jr., have all been returned to the court with the notation "return to sender, not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward".

Pursuant to Local Rule 41.2, the failure of a pro se litigant to keep the court apprised of an address change may be considered cause for dismissal for failure to prosecute when a notice is returned to a party or the court for the reason of an incorrect address and no correction is made to the address for a period of 30 days. Plaintiff, Lawrence Isaac, Jr., has not kept the court apprised of any address change.1

In addition, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(b) allows the court to dismiss an action "...for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order..."

Counsel for the defense informed the court at the hearing on August 8, 2013 that he has not had any contact with plaintiff, Lawrence Isaac, Jr.

As a practical matter, the claim of this plaintiff cannot proceed against the defendant if this plaintiff does not prosecute it or respond to the court's orders regarding disposition of the case. The failure of plaintiff, Lawrence Isaac, Jr., to prosecute his own claims effectively deprives the defendant of the opportunity to defend itself from the allegations made against it. The plaintiff has repeatedly failed to respond to court orders, and has failed to prosecute this action.

RECOMMENDATION

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the claims of plaintiff, Lawrence Isaac, Jr., be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 41.2 and Rule 41(b), for failure to prosecute.