UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION

WILLIE EARL BROWN CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-1641

SECTION P VS. JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY

CHRIS STINSON, ET AL. MAG. JUDGE KAYLA D. MCCLUSKY

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Willie Earl Brown, a prisoner at Madison Parish Correctional Center proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this proceeding on approximately December 4, 2024, under

. He names the following defendants: Warden Chris Stinson and Brandon Potter.1 A district court may dismiss an action based on a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with a court order. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). A court possesses the inherent authority to dismiss the action sua sponte on this basis. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

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

On March 18, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to amend his Complaint, remedy certain deficiencies, and provide specific information. [doc. # 8]. The undersigned cautioned that the Court may dismiss Plaintiff’s lawsuit if he failed to comply.

Plaintiff’s deadline to comply passed, and to date Plaintiff has not filed an amended pleading.

1 This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation under

, and the standing orders of the Court. Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff Willie Earl Brown's Complaint, [doc. # 1], be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Under the provisions of

(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b), parties aggrieved by this recommendation have fourteen (14) 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). In Chambers, Monroe, Louisiana, this 19" day of May, 2025.

Harfl Rp Me Chesley thaylaDyeMctlusky United States Magistrate Judge