IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

KYLE DAMOND JONES, 

Plaintiff, 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

vs. CIVIL NO. 4:22-CV-281-P 

TARRANT COUNTY COLLEGE 

DISTRICT, ct al., 

ORDER RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL 

AND RETURNING CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE 

The above-styled and numbered cause of action was filed on April 8, 2022, by pro se 

Plaintiff Kyle Damond Jones ("Jones"). Jones was granted permission to proceed in fimna 

pauper is on April 11, 2022 [ doc. 6]. On August 2, 2022, the Court issued an Order [doc. I OJ 

instructing Jones, should he desire to pursue his claims against the Defendants, to file, no later than 

August 16, 2022, an instrument in affidavit form providing the United States Marshal with proper 

location for service of Defendants Tarrant County College District, Carol Bracken, Eugene 

Giovannini, Peter Fiannaca, Angela Shindoll, and TCDD. The Order [ doc. 1 O] also provided that, 

should Plaintiff fail to comply, the Court will recommend dismissal of the action against all 

Defendants. As of the date of this Order, Jones has failed to file an instrument in affidavit form 

providing the United States Marshal with a location for service of the Defendants. 

Consequently, the Court RECOMMENDS that the above-styled and numbered cause be 

DISMISSED for failing to comply with the Court's Orders. 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b )(] ), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific 

written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge's 

proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within fou11een (14) days after the party has 

Case 4:22-cv-00281-P Document 11 Filed 08/17/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 42
been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need only make a de 

nova determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, 

conclusions and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(l). Failure to file, by the date stated above, a specific written objection to a proposed 

factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest 

injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal conclusions 

accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass 'n, 79 F.3d 

1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en bane), superseded by statute 011 other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b )(1) ( extending time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

ORDER 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is hereby ORDERED that each party is granted until August 

31, 2022, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed 

findings, conclusions and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed 

and the opposing party chooses to file a response, the response shall be filed within seven (7) days 

of the filing date of the objections. 

It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to 

the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions and recommendation, be and hereby 

is returned to the docket of the United States Dis ·· Judge. 

SIGNED August 17, 2022. 

L. TON 

ST A TES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:22-cv-00281-P Document 11 Filed 08/17/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 43