IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION MARTHUR L. DINGLE § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24cv184 SHERIFF, JEFFERSON COUNTY § REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Petitioner Marthur L. Dingle, an inmate confined at the Jefferson County Correctional Facility, proceeding pro se, brought the above-styled Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to

and the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. Discussion On May 21, 2024, Petitioner was ordered to submit either the filing fee or an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a statement certified by an authorized prison official showing the average balance in and deposits into Petitioner’s inmate trust account for the preceding six months. Petitioner’s compliance was due on or before the expiration of twenty (20) days from the date of the order. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with any court order. Larson v. Scott,

(5th Cir. 1998). “This authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court’s inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co.,

(5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co.,

(1962). As of this date, Petitioner has neither paid the filing fee nor submitted an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, as ordered. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to diligently prosecute this action. Therefore, this case should be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). Recommendation This action should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to FED. R. Clv. P. 41(b). Objections Within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the magistrate judge.

(b)(1)(C). Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

(Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc);

(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72.

SIGNED this 20th day of August, 2024. Zack Hawthorn United States Magistrate Judge