1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DONALD RAY LONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

PACE REALTY,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 3:22-cv-02100-E-BT

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

For the third time, Plaintiff Donald Ray Long, who is proceeding pro se and 

in forma pauperis, has failed to timely comply with a Court Order and has failed 

to prosecute his lawsuit. Accordingly, the Court should dismiss this civil action

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

Background

On September 21, 2022, Long filed a complaint alleging Defendant Pace 

Realty and others violated federal fair housing laws. Compl. 3-4 (ECF No. 3). After 

reviewing Long’s pleading, the Court found the complaint was deficient and issued

a Notice of Deficiency and Order (ECF No. 7) instructing Long to file an Amended 

Complaint that complied with Rule 8(a). When Long failed to timely respond, the 

magistrate judge recommended dismissing Long’s case without prejudice under

Rule 41(b). (ECF No. 8). But when the Court later received an Amended Complaint 

Case 3:22-cv-02100-E-BT Document 21 Filed 05/26/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID 61
2

(ECF No. 9), the magistrate judge vacated the recommendation for dismissal (ECF 

No. 10). 

Long’s Amended Complaint—which named only Pace Realty as a 

defendant—was also deficient. Therefore, the Court issued a Magistrate Judge’s 

Questionnaire (ECF No. 11) to obtain additional information about the factual 

basis of his claims. When Long failed to timely respond to the questionnaire, the 

magistrate judge recommended dismissing Long’s case without prejudice under

Rule 41(b). See FCR (ECF No. 12). Long later filed a Notice (ECF No. 13) and an 

untimely Response to the questionnaire (ECF No. 14). The magistrate judge

vacated the recommendation for dismissal. Order (ECF No. 15). 

On February 2, 2023, the Court ordered the Clerk of the Court to issue 

summons and send the summons, together with copies of the complaint, and other 

pleadings and orders, to the United States Marshal for service on Defendant Pace 

Realty. (ECF No. 16). Summons was issued that same day (ECF No. 17), but the 

Marshal was unable to execute the summons because the “business is no longer 

located [at the address provided].” Process Receipt & Return (ECF No 19). Thus, 

the Court ordered Long to provide—by May 5, 2023—an accurate address to serve 

Defendant. Order re. Service 1 (ECF No. 20). In its Order, the Court warned Long 

that failure to comply “may result in a recommendation that [Long’s] claims be 

dismissed for failure to prosecute and obey court orders.” Order re. Service 2 

(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). Nevertheless, Long has failed to provide the Court 

Case 3:22-cv-02100-E-BT Document 21 Filed 05/26/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID 62
3

with an accurate address for Defendant, nor has he responded in any manner to 

the Court’s order. 

Legal Standard and Analysis

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. Larson 

v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “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., 370 U.S. 626 

(1962)). 

Long has a history of failing to timely comply with Court orders and 

prosecute his case. Most recently, Long has failed to comply with the Court’s order 

to provide it with an accurate address to serve Defendant. Indeed, the Court has 

not heard from Long since January 2023, when he belatedly filed a response to the 

Magistrate Judge’s Questionnaire. The Court needs Long to provide an accurate 

address for Defendant so the Marshal can effect service of process. This litigation 

cannot proceed until Long provides the Court with that information. 

The inability to proceed with this litigation is directly attributable to Long’s 

failure to provide the information requested. As the Court previously explained:

While 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) 

relieve Plaintiff of the burden to serve process, it remains Plaintiff’s 

responsibility to locate Defendant and submit its address to the Court. 

Indeed, the Court has no obligation to assist Plaintiff in locating a 

Case 3:22-cv-02100-E-BT Document 21 Filed 05/26/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID 63
4

defendant’s address for the purpose of service of process. See Barmes 

v. Nolan, 123 F. App’x 238, 239 (7th Cir. 2005).

Order (ECF No. 20).

Under the circumstances, the Court should dismiss this lawsuit under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

Conclusion

The Court should dismiss Long’s civil action without prejudice under Rule 

41(b).

SO ORDERED.

May 26, 2023. ____________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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-02100-E-BT Document 21 Filed 05/26/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID 64