IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

TERRIZ BURKS, #22001738, §

PLAINTIFF, §

§

V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:22-CV-3257-C-BK

§

OFFICER THOMAS, 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 where appropriate. For the reasons that follow, this action should be 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order. 

On August 22, 2022, the Court severed Case No. 3:22-CV-1351-C-BK into 30 individual 

civil rights lawsuits. Doc. 11 at 3-4. Also, the Court advised each Plaintiff that, insofar as she 

sought to proceed with a civil action, she needed to file a complaint on the court-approved form 

along with filing and administrative fees of $402.00 or a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Doc. 11 at 4. See also N.D. TEX. MISC. ORD. 14 (requiring inmates to file civil rights complaints 

and motions to proceed in forma pauperis on the court-approved forms). The deadline for 

Plaintiff’s response was September 15, 2022. However, Plaintiff has not responded to the 

Court’s deficiency order, nor has she sought an extension of time to do so. She has also failed to 

keep the Court informed of her address change. Doc. 12 (returning to sender August 22, 2022 

order). 

Case 3:22-cv-03257-C-BK Document 13 Filed 09/28/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 55
2

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. She 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 September 28, 2022.

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 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), modified by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 

file objections to 14 days).

Case 3:22-cv-03257-C-BK Document 13 Filed 09/28/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 56