WILLIAM SANDERSON, Magistrate Judge
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the District Court in implementation thereof, this cause has been referred to the United States magistrate judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the magistrate judge, as evidenced by his signature thereto, are as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Type of Case: This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Parties: Plaintiff's address or place of confinement is presently unknown. He was incarcerated at the Dallas County Jail in Dallas, Texas, at the time of filing this action. Defendants are Dallas County Sheriff Jim Bowles, Director of Inmate Health Services Betty Culbreath, and Doctors Steven Bowers, James Holbrook, and Kathryn Flangin. The court has not issued process in this case.
Findings and Conclusions: On September 18, 2001, the magistrate judge issued a notice of deficiency and order to Plaintiff. The order notified Plaintiff that his request to proceed in forma pauperis did not include a certified statement of the balance in his inmate trust account for the six-month period preceding the filing of the complaint, and that the court had not received pages, one, three and five of the civil rights complaint. The deficiency order then directed Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies within thirty days and cautioned him that failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
On September 24, 2001, the deficiency order was returned to the court with the notation "return to sender, not in Dallas County." Apparently Plaintiff was discharged from custody or transferred to another penal unit between the date on which he filed his complaint and the date on which the magistrate judge's order was returned as being undeliverable. As of the date of this recommendation, Plaintiff has neither notified the court of his current address, nor complied with the September 18, 2001 order.
Rule 41(b), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, allows a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (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., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386 (1962)).
Plaintiff apparently has lost interest in pursuing any claims in this district as evidenced by the fact that, although his address has changed, he has not provided the court with his new mailing address. The court is not required to maintain this case on its active docket until Plaintiff, if ever, decides to advise it of his current address.
RECOMMENDATION:
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). A copy of this recommendation will be mailed to Plaintiff.
NOTICE
In the event that you wish to object to this recommendation, you are hereby notified that you must file your written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of this recommendation. Pursuant to Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), a party's failure to file written objections to these proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within such ten-day period may bar a de novo determination by the district judge of any finding of fact or conclusion of law and shall bar such party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected to proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the district court.