IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

DRUE ALLEN HOLLIS, 

Plaintiff, 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-413-P 

VALERIE ADELE WEBBER 

Defendant. 

ORDER RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL 

AND RETURNING CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE 

On May 12, 2022, prose Plaintiff Drue Allen Hollis filed a complaint in the above-styled 

and numbered cause. Thereafter, on May 26, 2022, the Court entered an Order Directing Plaintiff 

to File a Form Amended Complaint ordering Plaintiff, no later than May 26, 2022, to file an 

Amended Complaint that met the requirements set forth in the Court's order. 1 As of the date of 

this order, Plaintiff has wholly failed to comply with the Court's May 26, 2022, order by filing an 

Amended Complaint. Consequently, the Court RECOMMENDS that the above-styled and 

numbered cause be DISMISSED for failing to comply with the Court's order. 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), 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 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, 

1 The Court also enlered an order on May 26, 2022, requiring Plainliff lo comply with Local Civil Rules 

5. l(e)&(t) by June 2, 2022. As of today's date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's order. 

Case 4:22-cv-00413-P Document 14 Filed 06/13/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 59
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 '11, 79 F.3d 

1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en bane), superseded by statute 011 other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 

636(6)(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 June 24, 

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 pat1y 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 District Judge. 

SIGNED June 13, 2022. 

Case 4:22-cv-00413-P Document 14 Filed 06/13/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 60