IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

NADIA DORISE-CLAY, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00659-O-BP

 § 

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT §

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, §

 §

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se Plaintiff Nadia Dorise-Clay (“Dorise-Clay”) initiated this action by filing a 

complaint on August 1, 2022. ECF No. 1. On that same day, this case was automatically referred 

to the undersigned pursuant to Special Order 3. ECF No. 2. 

On August 9, 2022, the Court ordered entered a Notice of Deficiency and Order that 

ordered Dorise-Clay to file a First Amended Complaint consistent with the pleading requirements 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules of the Court (“Local Civil 

Rules”). ECF No. 5. The Court set a deadline for filing of August 30. Id. In the Order, the Court 

cautioned the Dorise-Clay that “failure to fully comply with this Order may result in the Plaintiff’s 

pleadings being stricken pursuant to Rule 12(e) or her case being dismissed without further notice 

under Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to prosecute or comply with a Court 

Order.” Id. at 2. 

Dorise-Clay did not comply, and on September 21, 2022, the Court ordered her to file a 

First Amended Complaint by October 2, 2022. ECF No. 6. In the second order, the Court 

specifically warned Dorise-Clay in boldface and underlined font “that failure to file the Amended 

Case 4:22-cv-00659-O Document 7 Filed 10/20/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 15
2

Complaint on or before October 2, 2022 as ordered could result in a recommendation that this case 

be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to obey 

court orders and failure to prosecute the case.” Id. at 2. To date, Dorise-Clay has not complied with

either order.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for 

failure to prosecute or follow court orders. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir.

1988). 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. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 

U.S. 626 (1962)). And the Court's authority under Rule 41(b) is not diluted by a party 

proceeding pro se, as “[t]he right of self-representation does not exempt a party from compliance 

with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” Hulsey v. Texas, 929 F.2d 168, 171 (5th

Cir. 1991) (quoting Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1981)). 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.

Despite a clear warning that noncompliance could result in dismissal of her case under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), Dorise-Clay has neither complied with the undersigned’s 

two orders to file a First Amended Complaint, nor submitted any other pleading explaining her

delay. It appears Dorise-Clay no longer wishes to pursue her claims in this case. Absent 

compliance with the Court’s orders, this case cannot proceed. Because Dorise-Clay’s

noncompliance does not appear to stem from purposeful delay or contumaciousness, a dismissal 

Case 4:22-cv-00659-O Document 7 Filed 10/20/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 16
3

without prejudice is warranted. Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS Judge O’Connor 

DISMISS this case without prejudice under Fed. Rul. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute or 

follow 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 October 20, 2022.

 

____________________________________

Hal R. Ray, Jr.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00659-O Document 7 Filed 10/20/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 17