IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UDEIRIAN GRAYSON, §

#382893, §

PLAINTIFF, §

§

V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:22-CV-524-G-BK

§

DALLAS COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT§

/DETECTIVES, §

DEFENDANT. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this pro se case was referred to the 

United States magistrate judge for case management, including the issuance of findings and a 

recommended disposition where appropriate. For the reasons that follow, this action should be 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order. 

It has come to the Court’s attention that Plaintiff is no longer confined in the Collin 

County Detention Center and, thus, has failed to inform the Court of his current address. On 

March 8, 2022, shortly after this action was filed, the Court twice notified Plaintiff of the 

requirement to keep the Court informed of his change of address or his case may be dismissed. 

See Doc. 7; Doc. 5; see also Compl., Doc. 3 at 2 (notifying Plaintiff of the responsibility to 

inform the court of any change of address). 

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, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “This authority flows from the court’s 

Case 3:22-cv-00524-G-BK Document 13 Filed 09/25/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 34
2

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)). 

Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address as required by the 

Court’s March 8, 2022 orders. The Court is not required to delay disposition in this case until 

such time as Plaintiff provides a current address. Therefore, this action should be DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order and for lack of prosecution. 

See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) (an involuntary dismissal “operates as an adjudication on the merits,” 

unless otherwise specified).

SO RECOMMENDED on September 25, 2022.

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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.

R. CIV. P. 72(b). 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), modified by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 

file objections to 14 days).

Case 3:22-cv-00524-G-BK Document 13 Filed 09/25/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 35