1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DEONDRAY RAYMOND MASON, §

 Petitioner, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-00958-S (BT)

§

FNU LNU,

 Respondent.

§

§

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner Deondray Raymond Mason filed this pro se petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons stated, the 

Court should dismiss this petition under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure.

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. 

Case 3:22-cv-00958-S-BT Document 5 Filed 06/03/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 26
2

1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)). Here, Mason 

has failed to comply with a court to pay the filing fee or file a motion for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis in this case.

At the time Mason initiated this habeas action on April 29, 2022, he 

did not pay the filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis in this case. Accordingly, on May 2, the Court mailed Mason an 

Order and Notice of Deficiency informing him that he had not paid the filing 

fee or filed a proper request to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court 

informed him that failure to cure this deficiency by June 2, 2022, could 

result in a recommendation that his petition be dismissed. Mason failed to 

respond, and the time for doing so has passed. He has failed to obey a court 

order and failed to prosecute this case. Therefore, Mason’s case should be 

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(b).

The Court should DISMISS Mason’s petition without prejudice under 

Rule 41(b).

SO RECOMMENDED.

June 3, 2022. 

____________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00958-S-BT Document 5 Filed 06/03/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 27
3

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-00958-S-BT Document 5 Filed 06/03/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 28