Dackerie Johnson v. N. Walter, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION DACKERIE JOHNSON CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-792-P VERSUS JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR. N. WALTER, ET AL. MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION In accordance with the standing order of this court, this matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for review, report and recommendation.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM Before the court is a civil rights complaint filed in forma pauperis by pro se plaintiff Dackerie Johnson (“Plaintiff”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was received and filed in this court on June 10, 2024. Plaintiff claims his civil rights were violated by prison officials while incarcerated at the Caddo Correctional Center in Shreveport, Louisiana. He names the Caddo Correctional Center, N. Walter, She Murphy, Unknown Male ERT, Unknown Female ERT, and Unknown Doctor as defendants.

On January 29, 2026, the Clerk mailed a docket sheet, 1983 form, IFP form, and copy work letter to Plaintiff (Doc. 22). On February 24, 2026, the docket sheet, 1983 form, IFP form, and copy work letter were returned to this court by the United States Postal Service marked “RETURN TO SENDER-UNABLE TO FORWARD.” To date, Plaintiff has not informed this court of his new address.

All parties have the responsibility of promptly reporting to the court and to all other parties any change in the mailing address. Failure to do so shall be considered cause for dismissal for failure to prosecute. See LR 41.3D.

Accordingly; IT IS RECOMMENDED that this complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, sua sponte, for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as interpreted by the court and under the court's inherent power to control its own docket. See Link v. Wabash Railroad Company, 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386 (1962); Rogers v. Kroger Company, 669 F.2d 317, 320-321 (5th Cir. 1982).

OBJECTIONS Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 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 unless an extension of time is granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). A party may respond to another party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof.

Counsel are directed to furnish a courtesy copy of any objections or responses to the District Judge at the time of filing.

A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation set forth above, within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the proposed factual findings and legal conclusions that were accepted by the district court and Page 2 of 3 that were not objected to by the aforementioned party. See Douglas v. U.S.A.A., 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc).

THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, at Shreveport, Louisiana, on this 1“ day of April 2026.

Mark L. Hornsby U.S. Magistrate Judge Page 3 of 3