IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

OLIVIA D. PEREZ, §

PLAINTIFF, §

§

V. § CIVIL NO. 3:22-CV-1178-C-BK

§

UNION STEWARDS UAW §

§

DEFENDANT. §

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. 

In answer to the Magistrate Judge’s Second Questionnaire, Plaintiff failed again to 

include a copy of the EEOC order ruling on Charge No. 450-2022-00810. Doc. 11. Thus, in the 

interest of justice, the Court issued a third questionnaire requiring Plaintiff to provide a copy of 

the EEOC ruling or her case would be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and for 

lack of prosecution. Doc. 12 at 2. The third questionnaire also asked Plaintiff to provide 

additional information in support of her request to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 12 at 2-3. 

The deadline for Plaintiff’s response was November 10, 2022. As of the date of this 

recommendation, however, Plaintiff has not responded to the third questionnaire, nor has she 

sought an extension of time to do so. 

Case 3:22-cv-01178-C-BK Document 13 Filed 12/02/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 64
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 third questionnaire. 

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).1

SO RECOMMENDED on December 2, 2022.

1 Absent Plaintiff’s answers to the third questionnaire and a copy of the EEOC right to sue letter, 

the Court cannot determine if this action is timely filed. Thus, it is unclear whether the higher 

standard for dismissal with prejudice for want of prosecution applies. See Berry v. CIGNA/RSICIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir. 1992). Callip v. Harris County Child Welfare 

Department, 757 F.2d 1513, 1519 (5th Cir. 1985). That notwithstanding, because there is a clear 

record of delay by Plaintiff and no lesser sanction will prompt diligent prosecution of this case, 

the Court should exercise its discretion to dismiss under Rule 41(b), even if limitations may 

prevent further litigation of some of her claims. See Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 

837 F.3d 438, 441 (5th Cir. 2016).

Case 3:22-cv-01178-C-BK Document 13 Filed 12/02/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 65
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 Services Automobile 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-01178-C-BK Document 13 Filed 12/02/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 66