1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MR. and MRS. LONDER B. DAVIS, §

Plaintiffs, §

 §

v. § No. 3:22-cv-01136-N (BT)

§ 

CLYDE McGUIRE, et al., §

Defendants. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a pro se civil action brought by Plaintiffs Mr. and Mrs. Londer 

B. Davis. On May 25, 2022, the Court sent Plaintiffs a Notice of Deficiency 

and Order (ECF No. 7), which directed them to file a complaint in 

compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) by June 27, 2022.1 The 

Order informed Plaintiffs that failure to respond and cure the deficiency by 

1

 Rule 8(a) provides:

A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's 

jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the 

claim needs no new jurisdictional support;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief; and

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in 

the alternative or different types of relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

Case 3:22-cv-01136-N-BT Document 12 Filed 09/08/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 196
2

June 27, 2022, could result in a recommendation that their case be 

dismissed. The June 27 deadline passed, and Plaintiffs failed to comply with 

the Court’s order. Therefore, the Court should dismiss this case without 

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

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. 

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

Here, Londer Davis filed a one-page complaint and approximately 

sixty pages of exhibits on May 24, 2022,2 but Plaintiffs failed to comply with 

the Court’s May 25, 2022 order to file a complaint in compliance with Rule 

2

 The complaint names “Mr. and Mrs. Londer B. Davis” as Plaintiffs, but only 

Londer Davis signed the complaint. The exhibits include copies of 

correspondence, medical records, invoices, collection notices, military 

discharge records, police reports, and court records—almost all of which 

contain handwritten comments.

Case 3:22-cv-01136-N-BT Document 12 Filed 09/08/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 197
3

8(a). Plaintiffs’ complaint lacks a short and plain statement of the grounds 

for the Court's jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of Plaintiffs’ claims 

showing they are entitled to relief, and a demand for relief. The Court cannot 

screen this case, and this litigation cannot proceed, until Plaintiffs cure this 

deficiency. Plaintiffs have failed to prosecute their lawsuit and also failed to 

obey a court order. Dismissal without prejudice is warranted under these 

circumstances. 

The Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice 

under Rule 41(b). 

SO RECOMMENDED.

Signed September 8, 2022. 

___________________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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-01136-N-BT Document 12 Filed 09/08/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 198