U .. DJ TRI ' . ( URT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FJLED 

INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTC URTEUN.-.~ 202·2···· 1 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF EXA . 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

CLERK, U.S. DISlfZICT COURT 

CHARLES E. SCOTT, 

Plaintiff, 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

By lkplll~ fl/!;t 

vs. Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-326-P(BJ) 

MORAY OF THE 

CITY FROWTHER, 

Defendants. 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Charles E. Scott ("Plaintiff') has filed a civil case. ECF No. 1. Resolution of 

preliminary matters was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions 

of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Miscellaneous Order No. 6. The findings, conclusions and 

recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are as follows: 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: 

A. NATURE OF THE CASE 

This case is a new civil action. 

B. PARTIES 

Charles. E. Scott is the Plaintiff. As best the Court can discern, Plaintiff lists as defendant 

"Moray of the City ofFrowther." ECF No. 1. 

C. LEGAL ANALYSIS 

Pro se plaintiff Scott filed this action on April 18, 2022. ECF No. 1. Because Scott's informa-paupers motion was wholly incomplete, the Court issued an Order and Notice of Deficiency 

on April 18, 2022, directing him to either pay the filing and administrative fees or file an amended 

Case 4:22-cv-00326-P Document 8 Filed 06/09/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 21
IFP application with complete answers to each question in the long-form in-forma-pauperis 

application by May 3, 2022. ECF No. 5. The Court warned Scott that his case could be subject to 

summary dismissal without further notice if he failed to timely comply. Id. Scott did not comply 

with that order. As a result, the Court then issued another order for Scott to either pay the $402.00 

filing and administrative fees or fully complete and re-submit a long-form application to proceed 

in forma pauperis on or before May 31, 2022. That second deficiency order expressly informed 

Scott that "[flailure to timely comply with this Order will result in a recommendation that this case 

be dismissed without further notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)." ECF No. 

7. Plaintiff has not responded. Because Plaintiff has wholly failed to file the fully completed infonna-pauperis application, he has failed to comply with this Court's order. 

Rule 41 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to dismiss an action sua 

sponte for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 

1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). This authority flows from a court's inherent power to control its docket, 

prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases, and avoid congested comi calendars. 

Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). Because Plaintiff has failed to comply 

with this Comi's deficiency orders, this case may be dismissed for failure to comply with a Court 

order and for lack of prosecution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

RECOMMENDATION 

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that that all of Plaintiffs claims be DISMISSED for 

lack of prosecution, without prejudice to being refiled. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (b ). 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT 

2 

Case 4:22-cv-00326-P Document 8 Filed 06/09/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 22
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties 

in the manner provided by law. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), each party to this action has the right 

to serve and file specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States 

Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within fourteen (14) days 

after the party has been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need 

only make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge's 

proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a 

proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error 

or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal 

conclusions accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto 

Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en bane), superseded by statute 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(l) (extending the deadline to file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to 

the undersigned for findings, conclusions, and recommendation, be and is hereby, RETURNED 

to the docket of the United States District Judge. 

SIGNED June !I_, 2022. 

3 

' j 

,;' 

~ J'\.. /'' '} ,; ,/ 

JEFFREY[: CtlWON ' ~ . 

UNITEr:l SlATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

/ 

,· i 

Case 4:22-cv-00326-P Document 8 Filed 06/09/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 23