Keith J. Gerald v. Christopher Goad et al.

a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION KEITH J GERALD #591112, CIVIL DOCKET NO. 1:24-CV-01587 Plaintiff SEC P VERSUS JUDGE DRELL CHRISTOPHER GOAD ET AL, MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES Defendants

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is a civil rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed by pro se Plaintiff Keith Gerald (“Gerald”), an inmate at Catahoula Correctional Center in Harrisonburg, Louisiana. Gerald alleges a violation of constitutional rights by Assistant Warden Christopher Goad and Sheriff Hendrix.

Because Gerald failed to comply with the Court’s Order, the Complaint should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

I. Background Gerald alleges that he was subjected to excessive force and denied medical care. He was ordered to amend the Complaint by April 7, 2025, to provide additional factual allegations to support his claim. ECF No. 6. To date, no amended complaint has been filed.

II. Law and Analysis A district court may dismiss an action for a petitioner’s failure to prosecute or to comply with any order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The dismissal may occur upon the motion of a defendant or the Court’s own motion. The authority to dismiss is provided to “achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases”; to “prevent undue delays”; and to “avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962); , 730 F.2d 248, 251 (5th Cir. 1984); 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980).

Gerald failed to comply with the Court’s Order to amend, and he has not requested an extension of time within which to comply. Therefore, the Complaint should be dismissed under Rule 41.

III. Conclusion Because Gerald failed to comply with the Court’s Order, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), a party may file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service, unless the Court grants an extension of time to file objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). A party may also respond to another party’s objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service of those objections, again unless the Court grants an extension of time to file a response to objections.

No other briefs may be filed without leave of court, which will only be granted for good cause. A party’s failure to timely file written objections to this Report and Recommendation will bar a party from later challenging factual or legal conclusions adopted by the District Judge, except if the challenge asserts “plain error.”

SIGNED on Monday, February 23, 2026. xf ~ JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE