IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

ROBERT CHARLES CASEY, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § Civil Action No. 4:24-CV-746-P (BJ) § UNKNOWN DEFENDANT, § § Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se Plaintiff Robert Charles Casey filed a civil complaint. ECF No. 1. Resolution of preliminary matters was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of

(b) and Miscellaneous Order No. 6. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are as follows: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: A. NATURE OF THE CASE This case is a new civil action. B. PARTIES Robert Charles Casey is the plaintiff. He names an unknown defendant. . C. LEGAL ANALYSIS Plaintiff did not pay the requisite $405 filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). On Augus 16, 2024, the Court entered an Order and Notice of Deficiency ordering Plaintiff to either pay the $405 filing fee or file a complete IFP application within 14 days. ECF No. 4. The Court explicitly warned Plaintiff that failure to timely comply could result in the dismissal of this action without further notice for failure to prosecute.

The deadline for Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s August 16 order lapsed. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to dismiss an action sua

sponte for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh,

(5th Cir. 1988). This authority flows from a court’s inherent power to control its docket, prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases, and avoid congested court calendars. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

(1962). Because Plaintiff failed to comply with this Court’s deficiency order, this case may be dismissed for failure to comply with a Court order and for lack of prosecution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). RECOMMENDATION It is therefore RECOMMENDED that that all of Plaintiff’s claims be DISMISSED for lack of prosecution, without prejudice to their being refiled. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT

A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Under

(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after the party has been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need only make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See

(b)(1). Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n,

(Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute

(b)(1) (extending the deadline to file objections from ten to fourteen days). It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to the undersigned for findings, conclusions, and recommendation, be and is hereby, RETURNED to the docket of the United States District Judge. SIGNED September 4, 2024. ) rho. ED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE