UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION

CLARENCE JOSEPH MATHEWS, JR CASE NO. 6:24-CV-01597 SEC P

VERSUS JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

SHERIFFS DEPT. VERMILION PARISH, MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST ET AL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Clarence Joseph Mathews, Jr., proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant civil rights complaint on November 15, 2024. Rec. Doc. 1. On January 14, 2025, following an initial review of his complaint by this Court, plaintiff was ordered to amend his complaint by February 24, 2025. Rec. Doc. 6. To date, Petitioner has failed to comply with this Court’s order to file an amendment to his complaint. Law and Analysis Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(b) permits dismissal of claims “For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with ... any order of court...” The district court also has the inherent authority to dismiss an action sua sponte, without motion by a defendant. Link v. Wabash R.R.Co.,

,

,

(1962). “The power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the [d]istrict [c]ourts.” McCullough v. Lynaugh,

(5th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff has failed to comply with an Order directing him to amend his complaint. This failure on his part warrants dismissal. Therefore, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the civil rights complaint be DISMISSED in accordance with the provisions of FRCP Rule 41(b). Under the provisions of

(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b), parties aggrieved by this recommendation have fourteen (14) business days from service of this report and recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may respond to another party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of any objections or response to the district judge at the time of filing. Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the proposed legal conclusions reflected in this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days following the date of its service, or within the time frame authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b), shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. See, Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association,

(5th Cir. 1996). THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers this Ist day of April, 2025.

Carol BB. Whitehurst United States Magistrate Judge