IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

ALICIA DWAE JOHNSON, § PLAINTIFF, § § V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:24-CV-2234-L-BK § NORTH FORNEY ISD, § DEFENDANT. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to

(b) and Special Order 3, this pro se case was referred to the United States magistrate judge for judicial screening, including the issuance of findings and a recommended disposition. Upon review, this action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order and for want of prosecution. On September 16, 2024, the Court issued a deficiency order, which required Plaintiff to (1) pay the required filing and administrative fees of $405.00 or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the AO 239 form, (2) file an amended complaint that meets the requirements of Rule 8(a), along with a civil cover sheet, and (3) register to use the Court’s electronic filing system. Doc. 5. After Plaintiff failed to comply, the Court extended the deadline, in the interest of justice, to November 1, 2024. Doc. 6. As of the date of this recommendation, however, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s deficiency order, nor has she sought an extension of time to do so. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order. Larson v. Scott,

(5th Cir. 1998). “This authority flows from the court’s inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Boudwin vy. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd.,

(Sth Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

(1962)). Plaintiff has been given ample opportunity to respond to the Court’s deficiency order. She has impliedly refused or declined to do so. Therefore, this action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order and for want of prosecution. See FED. R. P. 41(b) (an involuntary dismissal “operates as an adjudication on the merits,” unless otherwise specified).! SO RECOMMENDED on November 15, 2024.

Lv 1

E HARRIS TOLIVER UNNEDSTATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

' Absent a proper complaint, the Court cannot determine when the events at issue occurred. Thus, it is unclear whether the higher standard for dismissal with prejudice for want of prosecution would apply in this case. See Callip v. Harris County Child Welfare Dep’t,

(Sth Cir. 1985). That notwithstanding, because there is a clear record of delay by Plaintiff and no lesser sanction will prompt diligent prosecution of this case, the Court should exercise its discretion to dismiss under Rule 41(b), even if limitations may prevent further litigation of some of her claims. See Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit,

(5th Cir. 2016).

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See

(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is made, the basis for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds,

(b)(1) (extending the time to object to 14 days).