IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 FORT WORTH DIVISION

CHARLES EDWARD SCOTT, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-675-O-BP 

 §

CITY OF FORT WORTH, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Charles Edward Scott has filed a civil case. ECF Nos. 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. ECF No. 4. 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

Charles Edward Scott is the Plaintiff. In his filings, Plaintiff lists the City of Fort Worth 

and the City of Dallas as Defendants. See ECF No. 1. 

C. LEGAL ANALYSIS

Plaintiff filed this suit accompanied by a long-form application to proceed in forma 

pauperis. ECF No.2. But as that document included no answers to any of the questions or sections 

in the form, the Court issued an Order and Notice of Deficiency directing Plaintiff to complete and 

Case 4:22-cv-00675-O Document 9 Filed 08/26/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 35
2

refile a fully completed long-form in-forma-pauperis application, in order for the Court to make 

the pauper determination. ECF No. 6. That order directed Plaintiff to either pay the applicable 

filing and administrative fees or refile the fully completed long-form on or before August 23, 2022. 

Id. And, it directed that “[f]ailure to timely submit the applicable fees or a fully completed 

application to proceed in forma pauperis by that date could result in the dismissal of this 

case without further notice.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)) (emphasis in original). As of the 

date of this order, Plaintiff has not completed and refiled the requisite form, paid the filing and 

administrative fees, or otherwise filed any document responsive to the 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 Notice of Deficiency and Order, 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 that Plaintiff’s claims be DISMISSED 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 

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 

Case 4:22-cv-00675-O Document 9 Filed 08/26/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 36
3

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 August 26, 2022.

 

Hal R. Ray, Jr. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:22-cv-00675-O Document 9 Filed 08/26/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 37