1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CHARLES B. STARKE, JR., §

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-01950-E (BT)

§

CITY OF DALLAS, et al., § 

Defendants. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a pro se civil rights action brought by Plaintiff Charles B. 

Starke, Jr. On September 6, 2022, the Court granted Starke’s motion for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and attempted to screen his complaint. 

The Court found the complaint deficient and sent Starke a Notice of 

Deficiency and Order (ECF No. 7), which ordered him to file a complaint in 

compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).1 The Order further 

1 Rule 8(a) provides:

 A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's 

jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim 

needs no new jurisdictional support;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief; and

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the 

alternative or different types of relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

Case 3:22-cv-01950-E-BT Document 9 Filed 10/07/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 25
2

informed Starke that failure to respond and cure the deficiency by October 

6 could result in a recommendation that his case be dismissed. Starke has 

not filed any response, an amended complaint, or otherwise complied with 

the Court’s September 6 Order. Therefore, this case should be dismissed 

without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Rule 41(b) 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. 

Griggs v. S.G.E. Mgmt., L.L.C., 905 F.3d 835, 844 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing

McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (per curiam));

accord Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 440 (5th 

Cir. 2016) (failure to comply with a court order); Rosin v. Thaler, 450 F. 

App’x 383, 383-84 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (failure to prosecute). “This 

authority [under Rule 41(b)] 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)). 

Starke initiated this action by filing the court-approved form for a pro 

se complaint in a civil case. However, the complaint consists only of a few 

cursory sentences and references to several statutes found in the United 

States Code. Compl. 1 (ECF No. 3). Starke states that he suffered “[a] 

deprivation of [his] right [to] due process of law when [he] was arrested and 

incarcerated without being found guilty of a crime.” Id. Starke further 

Case 3:22-cv-01950-E-BT Document 9 Filed 10/07/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 26
3

contends that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when his car 

“was towed and auctioned off by [the] City of Dallas without a guilty verdict.” 

Id. He also alleges he “was prosecuted without a victim;” that “[a] police 

report had false statements; and he “was arrested 2 different times.” But 

Starke’s submission does not contain a short and plain statement of any 

claim showing that he is entitled to relief or facts sufficient to state a claim 

under Rule 8(a). He did not respond to the Notice of Deficiency and Order; 

nor did he file an amended complaint. He has thus failed to comply with the 

Court’s order. The Court cannot screen his claims, and this litigation cannot 

proceed until he cures this deficiency by filing a complaint in compliance 

with Rule 8(a). Dismissal without prejudice is warranted under these 

circumstances. 

Recommendation

The Court should dismiss Starke’s complaint without prejudice under 

Rule 41(b). 

SO RECOMMENDED.

Signed October 7, 2022.

_____________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01950-E-BT Document 9 Filed 10/07/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 27
4

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall 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). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific 

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

the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's report 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 

Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

Case 3:22-cv-01950-E-BT Document 9 Filed 10/07/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 28