LANCE M. AFRICK, Judge
On January 2, 2001, plaintiff, Richard A. Bourgeois, Sr., filed a complaint requesting review of a decision denying Social Security benefits. On April 10, 2001, this Court ordered plaintiff to file a motion for summary judgment no later than June 15, 2001, which plaintiff did not do. On July 24, 2001, this Court ordered the plaintiff to appear in the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge's chambers to show cause why the above-captioned case should not be dismissed as a result of his failure to prosecute and comply with this Court's April 10, 2001, minute entry. Plaintiff failed appear. As of this date, this Court has not received the motion which plaintiff was ordered to provide to this Court.
The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff's action because of failure to prosecute is clear. Link v. Wabash R.Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). The Court's power to dismiss for want of prosecution should be used sparingly, although it may be exercised sua sponte whenever necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Ramsey v. Bailey, 531 F.2d 706 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1107, 97 S.Ct. 1139, 51 L.Ed.2d 599 (1997). Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically provides that a Court may, in its discretion, dismiss a plaintiff's claim for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any order of the Court and such a dismissal is considered to be an adjudication on the merits. See also Lopez v. Arkansas County Independent School District, 570 F.2d 541 (5th Cir. 1978). Plaintiff has not filed the motion for summary judgment which he was ordered to file with this Court and he failed to appear as ordered.
RECOMMENDATION
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED, that plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation contained in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within 10 days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object.Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n. 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996).