IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

RONEE DAMIEN WILLIAMS, §

#43590-177, §

MOVANT, §

§

V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:22-CV-1406-N-BK

§ (CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3:16-CR-055-N-2)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §

RESPONDENT. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this pro se motion to vacate, set 

aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was referred to the United States Magistrate 

Judge for case management, including the issuance of findings and a recommended disposition

when appropriate. For the reasons that follow, this action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order and for want of prosecution. 

On August 2, 2022, the Court issued a deficiency order in accordance with Castro v. 

United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003), which required Movant to either (1) withdraw the 

request to appoint counsel, which the Court had recharacterized as his first § 2255 motion, or (2)

amend the same so that it contains all claims that Movant wants to raise with respect to his 

conviction and/or sentence. Doc. 5. The deadline for Movant’s response was August 30, 2022. 

As of the date of this recommendation, however, Movant has not responded to the Court’s order, 

nor has he sought an extension of time to do so. In addition, on August 22, 2022, the deficiency 

order was returned to the Court as undeliverable, Doc. 6., and as of the issuance of this 

recommendation, Movant has not provided his current address to the Court. 

Case 3:22-cv-01406-N-BK Document 7 Filed 10/18/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 45
Page 2 of 3

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

sponte for failure to prosecute or comply with the federal rules or any court order. Larson v. 

Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “This authority 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)).

Movant has been given ample opportunity to respond to the Court’s order. He has 

impliedly refused or declined to do so. In addition, the Court is not required to delay disposition 

in this case until such time as Movant provides a current address. Consequently, this action 

should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order and 

for lack of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) (an involuntary dismissal “operates as an 

adjudication on the merits,” unless otherwise specified).1

SO RECOMMENDED on October 18, 2022.

1A motion to vacate sentence must be filed within the one-year statute of limitations, see 28 

U.S.C. § 2255(f), which applies to this motion to vacate sentence and any subsequent motion to 

vacate sentence filed. 

Case 3:22-cv-01406-N-BK Document 7 Filed 10/18/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 46
Page 3 of 3

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation will 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). 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), modified by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 

file objections to 14 days).

Case 3:22-cv-01406-N-BK Document 7 Filed 10/18/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 47