1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MICHAEL D. JONES, §

PLAINTIFF, §

§

V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:22-CV-1905-N-BK

§

TATE REHMET LAW OFFICE, ET AL., §

DEFENDANTS. §

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 case was referred to the 

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

recommended disposition. For the reasons that follow, this action should be DISMISSED 

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

On September 23, 2022, the Court issued a deficiency order requiring Plaintiff to (1) 

move to proceed in forma pauperis on the AO-239 Form, (2) file an amended complaint that 

meets the requirements of Rule 8(a), and (3) register to use the Court’s electronic filing system. 

Doc. 6. After extending the time to comply, Plaintiff moved for leave to amend and to proceed 

in forma pauperis but did not file an amended complaint or register for electronic filing. Doc. 9; 

Doc. 10. On October 19, 2022, the Court thus issued a second deficiency order. Doc. 11. When 

Plaintiff again failed to comply, the undersigned recommended that the action be dismissed 

without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and for lack of prosecution. Doc. 12. 

Plaintiff subsequently registered for electronic filing and once more sought to extend time

to fully comply. Thus, the Court withdrew the recommendation and issued a third deficiency 

order requiring Plaintiff to file a civil cover sheet and an amended complaint. Doc. 14; Doc. 15. 

Case 3:22-cv-01905-N-BK Document 18 Filed 01/10/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 80
2

In response, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend that failed to include his proposed amended 

complaint as required by this district’s Local Civil Rule 15.1. Doc. 16. Therefore, on December 

14, 2022, the Court denied the motion to amend without prejudice to it being refiled with the 

proposed amended complaint attached. Doc. 17. The deadline for Plaintiff’s response was

December 28, 2022. As of the date of this recommendation, however, Plaintiff has not 

responded to the Court’s order, nor has he sought an extension of time to do so. 

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. 

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)). 

Plaintiff 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 lack 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 January 10, 2023.

Case 3:22-cv-01905-N-BK Document 18 Filed 01/10/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 81
3

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 Servs. Auto. 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-01905-N-BK Document 18 Filed 01/10/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 82