IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ANTHONY FADAYOMI, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00684-O-BP

 §

CHEX SYSTEMS, INC., §

§

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se Plaintiff Anthony Fadayomi (“Fadayomi”) initiated this action by filing a Small 

Claims Petition in the Justice Court, Precinct Three, of Tarrant County, Texas, on July 14, 2022. 

ECF No. 1-1. On August 9, 2022, Defendant Chex Systems, Inc., (“Chex”) removed the case from 

state court. ECF No. 1. Also on August 9, 2022, this case was automatically referred to the 

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

On August 16, 2022, the Court ordered Fadayomi and Chex to file amended pleadings 

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. 4. The Court set a deadline for filing of 

September 6, 2022. Id. ECF No. 4. In the Order, the Court cautioned the parties that “failure of 

any party to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that the Court dismiss 

Fadayomi’s claims or grant a default judgment against Chex.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Id. at 2. 

Fadayomi did not comply, and the Court ordered him to replead a second time, with the same 

warning, by October 11, 2022. ECF No. 6. To date, Fadayomi 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.

Case 4:22-cv-00684-O Document 7 Filed 10/20/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 28
2

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. Nov. 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 his case under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), Fadayomi has neither complied with the undersigned’s two 

orders to replead, nor submitted any other pleading explaining his delay. It appears Fadayomi no 

longer wishes to pursue his claims in this case. Absent compliance with the Court’s orders, this 

case cannot proceed. Because Fadayomi’s noncompliance does not appear to stem from purposeful 

delay or contumaciousness, a dismissal 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 

Case 4:22-cv-00684-O Document 7 Filed 10/20/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 29
3

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-00684-O Document 7 Filed 10/20/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 30