1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SASHA WINDHAM, §

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-00754-E-BT

§

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY §

ASSOCIATES, LLC, § 

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is a pro se civil action brought by Plaintiff Sasha Windham 

in a Texas justice of the peace court, purportedly filed under the Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., and removed to federal court by 

Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA). See generally Not. of Rem. 

(ECF No. 1). On April 5, 2022, the Court ordered the parties to confer and submit 

a joint proposal for a scheduling order. Ord. (ECF No. 5). In so doing, the Court 

specifically warned the parties that failure to confer and submit a joint proposal 

“could result in the imposition of sanctions.” Id. at 1. However, on the date the joint 

proposal was due, PRA notified the Court that it “attempted to contact . . . 

Windham via phone and email several times” but never received a response. Def.’s 

Rep. 1 (ECF No. 6).

Accordingly, the Court ordered Windham to show cause for her failure to 

confer with PRA regarding a proposed schedule. Ord. 1 (ECF No. 7). Once again, 

the Court specifically warned Windham that failure to comply with the Court’s 

Case 3:22-cv-00754-E-BT Document 9 Filed 06/01/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 38
2

order “may result in a recommendation to . . . dismiss this action.” Id. Windham 

has failed to respond to the Court’s order or otherwise show cause for her failure 

to confer with PRA. Therefore, the Court should dismiss this case without prejudice 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Rule 41(b) 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. Griggs 

v. S.G.E. Mgmt., L.L.C., 905 F.3d 835, 844 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing McCullough v. 

Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (per curiam)); accord Nottingham 

v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 2016) (failure to comply 

with a court order); Rosin v. Thaler, 450 F. App’x 383, 383-84 (5th Cir. 2011) (per 

curiam) (failure to prosecute). “This authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the 

court’s inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the 

disposition of pending cases.” Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 

401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)). 

Here, Windham has failed to comply with the two of the Court’s orders—to 

confer with PRA regarding a proposed schedule and to show cause for her failure 

to confer. This litigation cannot proceed without a scheduling order, and to enter 

one, Windham must cure these deficiencies. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 (b); 26(f). Thus, 

Windham has failed to prosecute her lawsuit and also failed to obey two court 

orders. Dismissal without prejudice is warranted under these circumstances. 

The Court should dismiss Windham’s case without prejudice under Rule 

41(b). 

Case 3:22-cv-00754-E-BT Document 9 Filed 06/01/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 39
3

SO RECOMMENDED.

Signed June 1, 2022. 

____________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall 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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). In order to be 

specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to 

which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in 

the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where 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 

Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

Case 3:22-cv-00754-E-BT Document 9 Filed 06/01/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 40