Reardon v. St Tammany Parish Jail Medical Department

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RAYMOND LOUIS REARDON 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-2103
ST. TAMMANY PARISH JAIL
MEDICAL DEPARTMENT
SECTION AM@ (5)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In September 2025, pro se plaintiff, Raymond Louis Reardon, submitted this civil
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the defendant, St. Tammany Parish Jail
Medical Department. 	In his complaint, he alleges that he was denied physical therapy or
any further medical attention after surgery on his arm and wrist. 	He requests monetary
compensation.
Upon filing, the Clerk’s Office notified him that the complaint was deficient because
he had not submitted the filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 	The
record indicates that the Clerk mailed the notice and standard IFP form to Reardon at the
address he provided on his complaint and gave him 21 days to comply. 	Rec. Doc. 2. 	He
failed to respond to that deficiency notice.
On November 25, 2025, the undersigned issued an order directing Reardon to pay the
filing fee or submit a pauper application. 	Rec. Doc. 3. 	He was ordered to respond by
December 15, 2025. 	He was also warned that if he failed to comply with the order, the
undersigned would recommend dismissal of his civil complaint. 	No mail has been
returned as undeliverable. 	To date, Reardon has failed to comply with the Court’s order.
Case 2:25-cv-02103-BWA Document 4 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 3

2
The authority of a federal court to dismiss a plaintiff's action because of failure to
prosecute is clear. 	The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically provide that a court
may, in its discretion, dismiss a plaintiff's action for failure to prosecute or for failure to
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any order of the court. 	Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). 	The Court's power to
dismiss for want of prosecution should be used sparingly, although it may be exercised sua
sponte when necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. 	See
Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388–89, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962);
McCullough, 835 F.2d at 1127; Ramsay v. Bailey, 531 F.2d 706, 707 (5th Cir. 1976).
A pro se litigant is not exempt from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and
substantive law. 	Grandpre v. Normand, Civ. Action No. 16-1541, 2018 WL 691650 (E.D. La.
Feb. 2, 2018) (citing Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1981)). 	Reardon has ignored
an express Court order to remedy the deficiency and pay the required filing fee or submit a
completed pauper application. 	In light of the foregoing, it is appropriate to dismiss
plaintiff's complaint. 	If plaintiff intends to move forward with these proceedings, he has
an opportunity to make that intent known within the 14-day objection window by
submitting the filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Case 2:25-cv-02103-BWA Document 4 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 3

3
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s complaint be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute or comply with this Court’s
order.
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within fourteen (14)
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 Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79
F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (citing 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)).1
New Orleans, Louisiana, this __________ day of January, 2026.
MICHAEL B. NORTH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1Douglass referenced the previously applicable 10-day period for the filing of objections. Effective
December 1, 2009, 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1) was amended to extend the period to 14 days.
7th
Case 2:25-cv-02103-BWA Document 4 Filed 01/07/26 Page 3 of 3