FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

TO DISMISS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner Cedric McNeal tendered to this Court several pleadings attempting to initiate a 

federal habeas corpus proceeding, which were consolidated in the instant action. (2:22-CV-104-ZBR, ECF 3; 2:22-CV-105-Z-BR, ECF 3; and 2:22-CV-109-Z-BR, ECF 3, 4). In the initial action, Petitioner 

sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis but failed to include a certified in forma pauperis data sheet from 

the institution in which he is confined. (2:22-CV-104-Z-BR, ECF 4). 

On May 25, 2022, following consolidation, the Court entered an Order Temporarily Granting 

Permission to Proceed in Forma Pauperis Pending Supplementation. (ECF 6). By that order, the 

Court temporarily granted Petitioner permission to proceed in forma pauperis pending submission 

of a form Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and a certified in forma pauperis data sheet 

from the penal institution in which he is incarcerated or, alternatively, receipt of the $5.00 filing 

fee. (Id. at 1). The Court ordered Petitioner, on before June 15, 2022, to (1) submit the form 

application and data sheet, (2) pay the filing fee to the United States District Clerk, or (3) submit 

evidence that Petitioner has authorized the institution to disburse the requisite funds from his trust 

account by properly completing and submitting to the institution a Form I-25 entitled “Inmate 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

CEDRIC MCNEAL, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

v. § 2:22-CV-109-Z-BR

§

DIRECTOR, §

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, §

Correctional Institutions Division, §

§

Respondent. §

Case 2:22-cv-00109-Z-BR Document 11 Filed 06/28/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 35
2

Request for Withdrawal.” (Id.). The Court warned that failure to do so would result in an 

immediate recommendation for the dismissal of the case without further notice. (Id. at 1–2).

As of this date, Petitioner has failed to respond to the Court’s Order or otherwise attempted

to communicate with the Court regarding his pauper status. The Court has given Petitioner ample 

opportunity to comply with its Order, yet Petitioner 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. 

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 

Petitioner’s failure to comply with this Court’s May 25, 2022 Order warrants dismissal. 

RECOMMENDATION

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

District Judge that the federal habeas corpus application, as consolidated (ECF 3, 4) filed by 

Petitioner Cedric McNeal 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 June 28, 2022.

Case 2:22-cv-00109-Z-BR Document 11 Filed 06/28/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 36
3

* 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 

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-00109-Z-BR Document 11 Filed 06/28/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 37