# Brown

> District Court, W.D. Louisiana · August 6, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11436211

## Case

- **Full name:** Eddie Brown, III v. Mark Mashaw, District Attorney David Summersgill, Criminal Investigator Jane Doe, and John Doe
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** August 6, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11436211

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MONROE DIVISION

EDDIE BROWN, III CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-1297

SECTION P
VS.
JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY

MARK MASHAW, ET AL. MAG. JUDGE KAYLA D MCCLUSKY

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Eddie Brown, III, who proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
proceeding on approximately April 21, 2026, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He names the following
defendants: Sheriff Mark Mashaw, District Attorney David Summersgill, Criminal Investigator
Jane Doe, and John Doe.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 June 1, 2026, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to amend his Complaint, remedy
certain deficiencies, and provide specific information. [doc. # 7]. The undersigned cautioned
that the Court may dismiss Plaintiff’s lawsuit if he failed to comply. Id. Plaintiff’s deadline to

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.
comply passed, and to date Plaintiff has not filed an amended pleading.
Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff Eddie Brown, III’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 6" day of August, 2026.

Kayla Dve McClusky
United States Magistrate Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11436211. Public record. Not legal advice.