1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

G&G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, LLC, 

AS BROADCAST LICENSEE OF THE 

MAY 6, 2017 ALVAREZ V. CHAVEZ, 

JR. FIGHT PROGRAM;

 Plaintiff,

vs.

NANCY C. GUERRERO,

 Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

SA-20-CV-00525-JKP

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

To the Honorable United States District Judge Jason K. Pulliam:

This Report and Recommendation concerns the above-styled cause of action, which was 

referred to the undersigned for all non-dispositive pretrial proceedings on May 3, 2020 [#4]. 

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 that this case be dismissed for 

want of prosecution. 

I. Background

Plaintiff G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC filed this action against Defendant Nancy C. 

Guerrero, individually, and d/b/a Crazy About Mangonadas. The record reflects that Plaintiff

served Defendant on May 22, 2020, making Defendant’s answer due by June 12, 2020. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A) (defendant must serve responsive pleading within 21 days after being 

served with summons and complaint). Defendant failed to answer or otherwise respond to 

Plaintiff’s Complaint, but Plaintiff has not moved for a Clerk’s Entry of Default or taken any 

other action in this case with respect to the default of Defendant. As a result of this inaction on 

Case 5:20-cv-00525-JKP Document 8 Filed 09/17/20 Page 1 of 3
2

the part of Plaintiff, the Court issued a Show Cause Order on August 13, 2020, ordering Plaintiff 

to show cause for its failure to prosecute this case and warning of the possible dismissal of this 

action under Rule 41(b). Plaintiff’s response to the Show Cause Order was due on or before 

August 24, 2020. To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Order or to take any other action 

in this case. 

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 respond to the Court’s Show Cause Order and 

failure to prosecute this case, the Court will recommend 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 Plaintiff’s 

Complaint be DISMISSED 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 

Case 5:20-cv-00525-JKP Document 8 Filed 09/17/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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 

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 September, 2020.

ELIZABETH S. ("BETSY") CHESTNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00525-JKP Document 8 Filed 09/17/20 Page 3 of 3