1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

WANDA WALDON,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

BEXAR COUNTY CRIMINAL 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,

 Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

SA-20-CV-00268-XR

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

To the Honorable United States District Judge Xavier Rodriguez:

This Report and Recommendation concerns the above-styled cause of action. All pretrial 

matters in this case have been referred to the undersigned for disposition pursuant to Western 

District of Texas Local Rule CV-72 and Appendix C. The undersigned has authority to enter 

this recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). For the reasons set forth below, it is 

recommended this case be DISMISSED for want of prosecution. 

I. Background

Plaintiff Wanda Waldon, proceeding pro se, originally filed this action in the 166th 

Judicial District of Bexar County, Texas against the Bexar County Criminal District Attorney’s 

Office. Defendant removed Plaintiff’s Petition to this Court on March 5, 2020 based on this 

Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s Petition sued the Bexar County DA for $750 

million dollars for breach of contract and violation of her civil rights based on a failure to 

provide equal protection under the law. Plaintiff alleges she was a victim of attempted murder, a 

hit and run, and an attempted burglary, but when she reported these incidents to Defendant, 

Defendant failed to investigate her complaints. 

Case 5:20-cv-00268-XR Document 19 Filed 08/17/20 Page 1 of 4
2

After the District Court referred this case to the undersigned, the Court set the case for a 

telephonic initial pretrial conference and ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit their 

proposed scheduling recommendations and Rule 26(f) report. Defendant submitted these filings 

but indicated that it was unsuccessful in reaching Plaintiff to confer with her on proposed 

deadlines and other initial matters. The Court held its pretrial conference on July 28, 2020 as 

ordered. Only Defendant appeared at the conference. 

There is a pending motion for judgment on the pleadings by Defendant. Plaintiff’s 

response to the motion was due on or before July 8, 2020 under this Court’s Local Rules. To 

date, Plaintiff has not filed a response in opposition. Additionally, the Court filings that the 

Clerk attempted to serve on Plaintiff at her address of record were returned as undeliverable. It 

is Plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the Court updated with her current address to ensure notice of 

the status of this lawsuit.

After Plaintiff failed to appear at the initial pretrial conference, the Court issued a show 

cause order, ordering Plaintiff to show cause for her absence at the conference. The Order also 

warned Plaintiff that a failure to respond to the order could result in the dismissal of her lawsuit 

for want of prosecution and the granting of Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as 

unopposed. Plaintiff failed to respond to the show cause order by the deadline provided and has 

still failed to respond to the motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

A district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with any order 

of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir.1988) (per curiam); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(b). In light of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Court’s Show Cause Order or to 

defend against Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court will recommend 

Case 5:20-cv-00268-XR Document 19 Filed 08/17/20 Page 2 of 4
3

that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

II. Conclusion and Recommendation

Having considered the record in this case, the undersigned recommends that this case be 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of prosecution. 

III. Instructions for Service and Notice of Right to Object/Appeal

The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of this report and recommendation on 

all parties by either (1) electronic transmittal to all parties represented by attorneys registered as 

a “filing user” with the clerk of court, or (2) by mailing a copy to those not registered by certified 

mail, return receipt requested. Written objections to this report and recommendation must be 

filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of same, unless this time period is 

modified by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The party shall file 

the objections with the Clerk of Court and serve the objections on all other parties. A party filing 

objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions or recommendations to which 

objections are being made and the basis for such objections; the district court need not consider 

frivolous, conclusive or general objections. A party’s failure to file written objections to the 

proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall bar the party 

from a de novo determination by the district court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–52 (1985); 

Acuña v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir. 2000). Additionally, failure to file 

timely written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations contained 

in this report and recommendation shall bar the aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain 

error, from attacking on appeal the un-objected-to proposed factual findings and legal 

Case 5:20-cv-00268-XR Document 19 Filed 08/17/20 Page 3 of 4
4

conclusions accepted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 

1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

SIGNED this 17th day of August, 2020.

ELIZABETH S. ("BETSY") CHESTNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00268-XR Document 19 Filed 08/17/20 Page 4 of 4