1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CHARLES E. SCOTT, §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § No. 3:22-cv-00997-N (BT)

§

CITY OF DALLAS, § 

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a pro se civil action brought by Plaintiff Charles E. Scott. Even 

liberally construed, Scott’s complaint is disjointed and nonsensical. See 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam) (providing 

allegations by a pro se litigant must be given liberal construction). For 

example, he states that he wants the Judge to “make the people of the city of 

Dallas to stop puting [sic] there [sic] phone on to bring pain on [him] 

without reason[.]” Compl. 1 (ECF No. 3). He also states that he seeks to 

“come into the court room if [at] all possible[.] I’m letting the Judge know 

this has to come to a stop even the onice [sic] that work in the build[ing] 

were [sic] I filling [sic] the paper work [sic] [.]” Id. 2. In view of these 

allegations, the Court sent Scott an Order and Notice of Deficiency (ECF No. 

6), which directed him to refile his complaint in compliance with Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). The Court further directed Scott to file a proper 

request to proceed in forma pauperis. The Order informed Scott that failure 

Case 3:22-cv-00997-N-BT Document 7 Filed 06/07/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 55
2

to respond and cure these deficiencies by June 6, 2022, could result in a 

recommendation that his case be dismissed. Scott has failed to respond, and 

the time for doing so has passed. 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, Scott has failed to prosecute his lawsuit and also failed to obey 

a court order. The Court cannot screen Scott’s complaint in its current form. 

He must refile his complaint in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 8(a). He also must file a proper request to proceed in forma 

pauperis. This litigation cannot proceed until he cures these deficiencies. 

Dismissal without prejudice is warranted under these circumstances. 

Case 3:22-cv-00997-N-BT Document 7 Filed 06/07/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 56
3

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

41(b). 

SO RECOMMENDED.

Signed June 7, 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-00997-N-BT Document 7 Filed 06/07/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 57