IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

BRODERICK GAMBLE, § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Plaintiff, 

vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-399-P(BJ) 

§ 

RONALD GARY CRABTREE, et al., § 

§ 

Defendants. § 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Broderick Gamble ("Plaintift'') has filed a civil case. ECF No. 3. Although 

originally filed in the Dallas division, by Order issued May 9, 2022, the case was transferred to 

this the Fort Worth Division. ECF No. 5. Resolution of preliminary matters was referred to the 

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Miscellaneous 

Order No. 6. 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 

Broderick Gamble is the Plaintiff. Plaintiff lists as defendants Ronald Gary Crabtree and 

Robert Judson Rockett. ECF No. 3. 

C. LEGAL ANALYSIS 

Case 4:22-cv-00399-P Document 17 Filed 06/07/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 187
Pro se plaintiff Broderick Gamble accompanied his complaint with a motion for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 4. Gamble's in-forma-paupers motion was wholly incomplete 

because he provided no answers to the questions and sections of the motion. Id. The Court thus 

issued an Order and Notice of Deficiency on May 12, 2022, directing Gamble to either pay the 

filing and administrative fees or file an amended IFP application with complete answers to each 

question in the long-form in-forma-pauperis application. ECF No. 8. The Court warned Gamble 

that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis could be denied if he failed to respond. ECF No. 8. 

Gamble did not then respond to that order. As a result, the Comi issued a second Order for Gamble 

to either pay the $402.00 filing and administrative fees or fully complete and re-submit a longform application to proceed in forma pauperis on or before June I, 2022. That second deficiency 

order expressly informed Gamble that "[f]ailure to timely comply with this Order could result in 

the dismissal of the case without further notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)." 

ECF No. I 0. Although Plaintiff filed another long-form in forma pauperis motion with attachment 

pages on May 26, 2022, review of that IFP form shows that Gamble again wholly failed to provide 

any answers to the questions about his income, assets, and expense. ECF No. 13. Because Plaintiff 

has wholly failed to pay the applicable fees or properly complete the in-forma-pauperis 

application, he has failed to comply with this Comt's orders. 1 

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedme 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 comi's inherent power to control its docket, 

prevent m1due delays in the disposition of pending cases, and avoid congested court calendars. 

1 Although Gamble also filed other documents (ECF Nos. 12, 14, and 15), neither the motion or 

other document provide any responsive information to the Courts' prior orders. 

') 

Case 4:22-cv-00399-P Document 17 Filed 06/07/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 188
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). Because Plaintiff has failed to comply 

with this Court's deficiency orders, 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 all of Plaintiffs claims be DISMISSED for 

lack of prosecution, without prejudice to being refiled. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS 

AND RECOMMENDATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT 

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

in the manner provided by law. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), each patty 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 patty has been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need 

only make a de novo determination of those po1tions 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)(l ). 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 bane), superseded by statute 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(l) (extending the deadline to file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to 

the undersigned for findings, conclusions, and recommendation, be at1d is hereby, RETURNED 

Case 4:22-cv-00399-P Document 17 Filed 06/07/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 189
to the docket of the United States District Judge. 

SIGNED June J_, 2022. 

ETON 

TES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

4 

Case 4:22-cv-00399-P Document 17 Filed 06/07/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 190