FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PAUL D. STICKNEY, Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and an order of the District Court, this case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge follow:

I.

On March 25, 2015, Petitioner filed this petition to vacate, set-aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On January 26, 2016, the district court granted the government's motion to reduce Petitioner's sentence to time served. On March 9, 2016, the Court sent Petitioner a Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire to determine whether she intended to pursue her § 2255 petition. The Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire stated that failure to respond within thirty days could result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. More than thirty days have passed and Petitioner has failed to respond to the Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire.

II.

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). "This authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows the court's inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases." Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386 (1962)). Petitioner has failed to respond to the Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

III.

The Court recommends that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).