Summary Calendar KEVIN DALE MANNING v. Cheramie Brothers Bo Truc; United States Coast Guard

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
September 14, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-30393
Summary Calendar
KEVIN DALE MANNING
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
CHERAMIE BROTHERS BO TRUC;
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:06-CV-5835
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The pro se plaintiff-appellant, Kevin Dale Manning, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his maritime action without prejudice for failure to
prosecute.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a district
court to dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. McCullough v.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 07-30393
2
Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1998). The district court may dismiss
an action for failure to prosecute on its own initiative, without any motion from
the opposing party. Id. Rule 41(b) dismissals are reviewed for abuse of
discretion. Id.; Rogers v. Kroger Co., 669 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir. 1982).
Because the district court’s dismissal was without prejudice and because
the record contains no indication that—and the plaintiff does not contend that—
any applicable statute of limitations has run since the filing of the complaint, see
Hawkins v. McHugh, 46 F.3d 10, 12 (5th Cir. 1995), the plaintiff has suffered no
prejudicial harm from the dismissal. See McCullough, 835 F.2d at 1127 (“In
such circumstances trial courts must be allowed leeway in the difficult task of
keeping their dockets moving.”). The district court dismissed the action after the
plaintiff failed to establish good cause why no action had been taken in the case
and after due notice to the plaintiff to show cause had been provided. Under
these circumstances, the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s case without
prejudice was not an abuse of discretion.
For these reasons, we AFFIRM.
The plaintiff’s motion to supplement the record is DENIED AS MOOT.

-- 2 of 2 --