UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SAMUEL S. ROBINSON, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff NO.: 25-268

VERSUS SECTION: "D" (1)

ST. TAMMANY PARISH GOVERNMENT, JUDGE WENDY B. VITTER Defendant MAGISTRATE JUDGE JANIS VAN MEERVELD

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on February 6, 2025. Because there was no evidence in the record that the defendant had been served,1 on May 21, 2025, the Court set this matter on its Call Docket for June 11, 2025. The Court required plaintiff to appear in person to report on the status of the case and show cause why service of the summons and complaint had not been completed and/or why this matter should not be dismissed. Neither plaintiff nor his counsel appeared on June 11, 2025, and the matter was continued to July 9, 2025. The Court warned plaintiff that his failure to complete service and/or failure to appear in Court as ordered may result in the dismissal of his lawsuit for failure to prosecute. Neither plaintiff nor his counsel appeared on July 9, 2025. Nor has plaintiff filed returns of service of process or a written explanation for his failure to complete service. “[A] federal district court possesses the inherent authority to dismiss an action for want of prosecution, which it may exercise on its own motion when necessary to maintain the orderly administration of justice.” Gonzalez v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.,

(5th Cir.

1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires that the defendant be served within 90 days after the complaint is filed. 1980). Plaintiff's failure to serve the defendant and Plaintiffs failure to comply with this Court’s orders demonstrates a clear record of delay. Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. OBJECTIONS A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within fourteen (14) calendar days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

, 1430 □□ Cir. 1996) (en banc). New Orleans, Louisiana, this 9th day of July, 2025. Das _vanw Mocruel Janis van Meerveld United States Magistrate Judge