IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

MELEANNIE J. OWADE, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § NO. 4:22-cv-880-O-BP

§

MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, §

INC, et al., §

Defendants. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se Plaintiff Meleannie Owade (“Owade”) sued Defendants on September 29, 2022. 

ECF No. 1. She filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis that same day. ECF No. 

2. However, that Motion was deficient. The Court informed Owade that it could not determine her

Motion without a complete, verified application and ordered her to either pay the filing fee or 

submit a fully completed long form application to proceed in forma pauperis by October 17, 2022. 

See ECF No. 6. The Court warned Owade that noncompliance “could result in a 

recommendation that this case be dismissed without further notice. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).” 

Id. at 2. To date, Owade has neither complied with that Order nor submitted any other pleading 

explaining her delay. 

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 

Case 4:22-cv-00880-O Document 7 Filed 10/28/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 31
2

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 her case under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), Owade did not comply with that order or file a pleading to 

explain her delay. Absent compliance with the Court’s orders, this case cannot proceed. Because 

Owade’s noncompliance does not appear to stem from purposeful delay or contumaciousness, a 

dismissal without prejudice is warranted. Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS the 

United States District Judge Reed O’Connor 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 

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).

Case 4:22-cv-00880-O Document 7 Filed 10/28/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 32
3

SIGNED on October 28, 2022.

____________________________________

Hal R. Ray, Jr.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00880-O Document 7 Filed 10/28/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 33