Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

WAI T., §

PETITIONER, §

§

V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:22-CV-1044-B-BK

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., §

RESPONDENTS. §

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 civil action was referred 

to the United States magistrate judge for case management, including the issuance of findings 

and a recommended disposition where appropriate. For the reasons that follow, this action 

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

On May 27, 2022, the Court issued its second order requiring Petitioner to pay the $5.00 

filing fee, Doc. 16, after he failed to comply with the first, Doc. 11. The latest deadline for 

Petitioner’s response was June 28, 2022. As of the date of this recommendation, however, 

Petitioner has neither paid the $5.00 filing fee nor sought an extension of time to do so.

Moreover, a review of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) Online Detainee Locator 

System confirms that Petitioner is no longer in ICE custody.1 

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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. 

1 The Online Detainee Locator is available at https://locator.ice.gov/odls/ (last accessed on July 

8, 2022).

Case 3:22-cv-01044-B-BK Document 18 Filed 07/19/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 230
Page 2 of 2

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)).

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

impliedly refused or declined to do so. Therefore, this action should be DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order and for want of prosecution. 

See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) (an involuntary dismissal “operates as an adjudication on the merits,” 

unless otherwise specified).

SO RECOMMENDED on July 19, 2022.

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 finding or recommendation to which objection is 

made, the basis for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation 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 on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time 

to file objections to 14 days). 

Case 3:22-cv-01044-B-BK Document 18 Filed 07/19/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 231