IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

ANTHONY CARTER, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § 2:22-cv-68-Z-BR

§

POTTER COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, §

§

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

TO DISMISS § 1983 CLAIM

 Plaintiff Anthony Carter tendered to this Court a pleading attempting to initiate a civil 

proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF 3). Plaintiff did not submit with his pleading any 

payment to satisfy the requisite fee though he did submit an Application to Proceed in Forma 

Pauperis with a certified trust fund account data sheet. (ECF 4). At the time of filing, Plaintiff was 

incarcerated in the Potter County Jail. 

When this matter came before the Court for screening, Potter County Jail records indicated 

Plaintiff was no longer in custody there. For that reason, on November 10, 2022, the Court issued 

an Order notifying Plaintiff that it was his responsibility to maintain current contact information 

with the Court and requiring him to indicate an intention to proceed with this case on or before 

November 25, 2022. (ECF 7). 

As of this date, Plaintiff has not only failed to respond to the Court’s Order but also has not 

attempted to communicate with the Court in any way. The Court has given Plaintiff ample 

opportunity to comply with its Order, yet Plaintiff has failed to follow the Court’s direct orders. 

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. 

Case 2:22-cv-00068-Z-BR Document 8 Filed 12/13/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 22
2

Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1988); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. “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., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) 

(citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S. Ct. 1386 (1962)). The undersigned finds 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Court’s November 10, 2022 Order warrants dismissal. 

RECOMMENDATION

It is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United States 

District Judge that the Complaint (ECF 3) filed by Plaintiff Anthony Carter be DISMISSED.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE

The United States District Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Findings, Conclusions 

and Recommendation to each party by the most efficient means available.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

ENTERED December 13, 2022.

* NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT *

Any party may object to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. In the 

event parties wish to object, they are hereby NOTIFIED that the deadline for filing objections is 

fourteen (14) days from the date of filing as indicated by the “entered” date directly above the 

signature line. Service is complete upon mailing, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), or transmission by 

electronic means, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E). Any objections must be filed on or before the 

fourteenth (14th) day after this recommendation is filed as indicated by the “entered” date. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).

Any such objections shall be made in a written pleading entitled “Objections to the 

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation.” Objecting parties shall file the written objections 

with the United States District Clerk and serve a copy of such objections on all other parties. A 

party’s failure to timely file written objections shall bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds 

of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings, legal 

conclusions, and recommendation set forth by the Magistrate Judge and accepted by the district 

Case 2:22-cv-00068-Z-BR Document 8 Filed 12/13/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 23
3

court. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), 

superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), as recognized in ACS Recovery 

Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, 676 F.3d 512, 521 n.5 (5th Cir. 2012); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 

276–77 (5th Cir. 1988).

Case 2:22-cv-00068-Z-BR Document 8 Filed 12/13/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 24