IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JAMES JUNIOR WEST, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-270-O-BP 

 §

GRETCH COLBERT, §

§

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff James Junior West (“Plaintiff”) has filed a civil case. ECF No. 1. Resolution of 

preliminary matters was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions 

of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order No. 3. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of 

the United States Magistrate Judge are as follows:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

A. NATURE OF THE CASE

This case is a new civil action.

B. PARTIES

James Junior West is the Plaintiff. In the complaint, Plaintiff lists as defendant Gretch 

Colbert. ECF No. 1. 

C. LEGAL ANALYSIS

Plaintiff filed this suit accompanied by a short form in forma pauperis application. ECF 

No. 2. Because that document provided insufficient information about Plaintiff’s income and 

assets, the Court issued an Order and Notice of Deficiency directing Plaintiff to complete and file 

a long-form in-forma-pauperis application, in order for the Court to have sufficient information to 

Case 4:22-cv-00270-O Document 7 Filed 05/17/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 28
2

make the pauper determination. ECF No. 5. That Order directed Plaintiff to file the fully completed 

long-form by April 22. Id. And it directed that “failure to timely submit the applicable fees or 

a fully completed application to proceed in forma pauperis by that time could result in the 

dismissal of this case without further notice.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). Plaintiff West 

did not comply, and the Court then issued a “Second Notice of Deficiency and Order” extending 

the time for West to comply until May 10, 2022. ECF No. 6. That Order expressly noted that 

“failure to comply with this Order will result in a recommendation that his case be dismissed 

without further notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” Id. Plaintiff has 

not responded. Because Plaintiff has wholly failed to file the fully completed in-forma-pauperis 

application, he has failed to comply with this Court’s order. 

 Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to dismiss an action sua 

sponte for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 

1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). This authority flows from a court’s inherent power to control its docket, 

prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases, and avoid congested court calendars. 

Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). Because Plaintiff has failed to comply 

with this Court’s deficiency orders, this case may be dismissed for failure to comply with a Court 

order and for lack of prosecution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

 RECOMMENDATION

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that all of Plaintiff’s claims be DISMISSED for failure 

to comply with a Court order and for lack of prosecution, without prejudice to being refiled. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties 

in the manner provided by law. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 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 

Case 4:22-cv-00270-O Document 7 Filed 05/17/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 29
3

Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within fourteen (14) days 

after the party has been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need 

only make a de novo 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)(1). 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 banc), superseded by statute 28 U.S.C. § 

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

SIGNED on May 17, 2022.

 

Hal R. Ray, Jr. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:22-cv-00270-O Document 7 Filed 05/17/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 30