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-00447-O-BP

 §

FEDERAL SECURITY, §

§

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se Plaintiff Charles Scott sued “Federal Security” on May 24, 2022. ECF No. 1. He 

filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis that same day. ECF No. 3. But his 

Application was unanswered, with Scott drawing lines through several sections of the form and 

writing “N/A” across the rest. See id. The Court informed Scott it could not determine his Motion 

without an answered application and ordered him to either pay the filing fee or submit a fully 

completed long form application to proceed in forma pauperis by June 8. ECF No. 6. The Court 

warned Scott noncompliance “could result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” Id. at 2. To date, Scott has neither complied with that Order nor 

submitted any other pleading explaining his delay. Accordingly, the undersigned 

RECOMMENDS that United States District Judge Reed O’Connor DISMISS this case without 

prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

District courts may dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or follow court 

orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). This authority flows from a court’s inherent power to manage its 

docket. Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. 

Case 4:22-cv-00447-O Document 7 Filed 06/10/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 16
2

Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)). A Rule 41(b) dismissal may be with or without prejudice. 

Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878, 880 (5th Cir. 1996). However, dismissals with prejudice for want 

of prosecution are considered “an extreme sanction.” Id. Accordingly, the Court should employ 

such dismissals only where a litigant’s acts or omissions are “the result of purposeful delay or 

contumaciousness and the record reflects that the district court employed lesser sanctions before 

dismissing the action [with prejudice].” Id.

II. ANALYSIS

Scott submitted an unanswered and unsigned application to proceed in forma pauperis

despite clear instructions to sign the form and “[c]omplete all questions in this application.” See 

ECF No. 3 at 1. The Court notified Scott it could not render a decision on his Motion in the absence 

of a signed, fully completed application. ECF No. 6. Yet the Court afforded him an opportunity to 

remedy this issue by signing and submitting a fully complete in forma pauperis application or 

paying the relevant filing fee. Id. Despite a clear warning that noncompliance could result in a 

recommendation that his case be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), Scott did 

not comply with that order or submit a pleading to explain his delay. Accordingly, Judge O’Connor 

should dismiss his case for failure to prosecute or follow court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 

see also Hickerson v. Christian, 283 F. App’x 251, 253 (5th Cir. 2008) (observing that district 

courts are empowered to dismiss actions sua sponte under Rule 41(b) and routinely do). This is 

precisely the circumstance envisaged by the Rule, which flows from the Court’s inherent authority 

to manage its docket. Boudwin, 756 F.2d 399, at 401 (citing Link, 370 U.S. 626). Nevertheless, 

because nothing indicates Scott’s noncompliance stems from “purposeful delay or 

contumaciousness,” and the Court has not first “employed lesser sanctions,” the Court should 

dismiss Scott’s case without prejudice. Long, 77 F.3d at 880. 

Case 4:22-cv-00447-O Document 7 Filed 06/10/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 17
3

III. CONCLUSION

Scott failed to comply with prior court orders despite being warned noncompliance could 

lead to a recommendation that his case be dismissed without further warning. But his 

noncompliance does not appear to stem from purposeful delay or contumaciousness and the Court 

has not employed any lesser sanctions in this case, such as dismissal without prejudice. 

Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Judge O’Connor DISMISS this case 

without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute or comply 

with court orders. 

A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties 

in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, 

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)(2). To be specific, an objection must 

identify the particular finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for 

the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, 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 Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th 

Cir. 1996) (en banc).

SIGNED on June 10, 2022. 

____________________________________

Hal R. Ray, Jr.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00447-O Document 7 Filed 06/10/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 18