The opinion
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
42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31
(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.”
Id.
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. Id. 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
28 U.S.C. § 636, 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 28 U.S.C. § 636(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, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996).
In Chambers, Monroe, Louisiana, this 19" day of May, 2025.
Harfl Rp Me Chesley
thaylaDyeMctlusky
United States Magistrate Judge