Dyson v. Tangipahoa Parish Jail, No. 2:2022cv00293 - Document 12 (E.D. La. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS: The Court, having considered Plaintiff Joel Alstephen Dyson, Jr.'s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint, the record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and the failure of the Plaintiff to file any objection to the Report and Recommendation, and finding that it is not clearly erroneous or contrary to the law, hereby approves the Report and Recommendation and adopts it as its opinion in this matter. In doing so, the Cou rt notes that it has construed Plaintiff's pro se pleading liberally. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims alleged in the Complaint against Defendant, Tangipahoa Parish Jail, are DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Wendy B Vitter on 10/13/22.(cg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dyson v. Tangipahoa Parish Jail Doc. 12 Case 2:22-cv-00293-WBV Document 12 Filed 10/13/22 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JOEL ALSTEPHEN DYSON, JR. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 22-293 TANGIPAHOA PARISH JAIL SECTION: D (4) ORDER AND REASONS The Court, having considered Plaintiff Joel Alstephen Dyson, Jr.’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint,1 the record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge,2 and the failure of the Plaintiff to file any objection to the Report and Recommendation,3 and finding that it is not clearly erroneous or contrary to the law, hereby approves the Report and Recommendation and adopts it as its opinion in this matter. In doing so, the Court notes that it has construed Plaintiff’s pro se pleading liberally.4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims alleged in the Complaint5 against Defendant, Tangipahoa Parish Jail, are DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. New Orleans, Louisiana, October 13, 2022. ______________________________ WENDY B. VITTER United States District Judge R. Doc. 1. R. Doc. 11. 3 Objections were due October 5, 2022. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court has allowed additional time for objections. None have been filed as of the date of this Order. 4 See Coleman v. United States, 912 F.3d 824, 828 (5th Cir. 2019). 5 R. Doc. 1. 1 2 Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
