IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

DELFINA TORRES, § Plaintiff § § v. § Case No. 1:21-CV-00100-LY-SH § THE BROWNSVILLE UTILITIES § BOARD, § Defendant §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO: THE HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Plaintiff Delfina Torres’s Complaint. Dkt. 1. The District Court referred all pending and future nondispositive and dispositive motions to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for resolution and Report and Recommendation, respectively, pursuant to

(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1(d) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. I. Background On February 2, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit either the filing fee of $402 or a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty days. Dkt. 3. The Court also warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Court’s Order may result in dismissal of this case for want of prosecution.

Plaintiff failed to timely submit a filing fee or complete an application to proceed in forma pauperis. A district court may dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or to comply with any order of court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). McCullough v. Lynaugh,

(Sth Cir. 1988). Because Plaintiff failed to abide by a Court Order and to prosecute her case, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this case be dismissed. Il. Recommendation The undersigned therefore RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS Delfina Torres’s case without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). II. Warnings The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n,

(Sth Cir. 1987). A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after the party is served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations in the Report and, except on grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. See

(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). SIGNED on March 5, 2021. Bb SUSAN HIGHTOWER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE