IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SHERMAINE LASTER, §

Fed. Reg. No. 52285-509, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-01913-G-BP

 § 

JANE BOYLE, et al., §

 § 

Defendants. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se Plaintiff Shermaine Laster (“Laster”) sued Defendants on August 29, 2022. ECF 

No. 3. Having reviewed the file and found that Laster had neither paid the requisite filing and 

administrative fees nor filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the undersigned entered an 

Order and Notice of Deficiency on September 21, 2022. ECF No. 12.

The Order and Notice ordered the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of the order to Plaintiff at 

his address shown on the docket sheet and to Plaintiff at FTC Oklahoma City, 7410 S. MacArthur 

Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169, along with a long-form application to proceed in forma pauperis 

and a certificate of inmate trust account for completion and return to the Clerk of Court. Id. at 1-

2. The Clerk of Court did so the same day, on September 21, 2022. The Order and Notice also 

warned Plaintiff that if he wished to maintain this lawsuit, “he shall cure the deficiency identified 

above on or before October 21, 2022. Failure to timely comply with this order could result in the 

dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiff’s complaint without further notice for failure to prosecute 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” Id. at 2. 

Case 3:22-cv-01913-G-BP Document 15 Filed 10/28/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 50
2

On October 12, 2022, the Court received the forms that were mailed to the address on the 

docket sheet back, marked as undeliverable mail. ECF No. 14. To date, Laster has not complied 

with the Court’s Order and Notice of Deficiency.

District courts may dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or follow court 

orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 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)). 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), Laster did not comply with the Court’s Order and Notice 

of Deficiency or file a pleading to explain his delay. Absent compliance with the Court’s orders, 

this case cannot proceed. Because Laster’s noncompliance does not appear to stem from 

purposeful delay or contumaciousness, a dismissal without prejudice is warranted. Accordingly, 

the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Senior United States District Judge A. Joe Fish 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 

Case 3:22-cv-01913-G-BP Document 15 Filed 10/28/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 51
3

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 28, 2022.

 

____________________________________

Hal R. Ray, Jr.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01913-G-BP Document 15 Filed 10/28/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 52